Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Further Education Colleges

John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the future of adult education in further education colleges.

Ruth Kelly: On 22 March we published our skills White Paper. It set out our plans for improving adult learning, including the national roll-out of the entitlement to free tuition to NVQ level 2. A vital part of those plans is building the capacity of colleges to deliver benefits for employers and individuals. Over the next five years, we are investing £1.5 billion in capital to support the transformation of the further education sector.

John Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but how would she reply to the Association of Colleges and, indeed, to my constituent, Mr. Colin Ratcliffe, who attends a sculpture class at York college? They both welcome the emphasis on basic skills, but are concerned that fee rises for non-examined adult education courses might undermine the principle of lifelong learning, particularly among less well-off pensioners and adults.

Ruth Kelly: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, as I recognise the importance of adult education. Sometimes such education does not lead to a recognised qualification in basic skills or a level 2 qualification, which is why we said in the White Paper that we would safeguard the funding available for the provision of adult education. Within that, it is for individual colleges to decide their charging structure. They should take ability to pay into account. There remains a significant contribution to the subsidy provided and I suspect that practically all colleges would exempt all poorer pensioners from any charge.

David Rendel: In her statement on Tuesday, the Secretary of State said:
	"I am committed to supporting people in gaining the skills and qualifications needed to get satisfying jobs and a decent standard of living for themselves and their families."—[Official Report, 22 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 732.]
	Following the previous supplementary question, I am rather sad to hear that the Secretary of State sees adult learning purely in terms of employment prospects. Important though it is to give people skills to do jobs, does she agree that adult learning also has a crucial part to play in enhancing the quality of life for students and their communities—as, for example, with the provision of language training for people who may be involved in town twinning? Does she accept that enhancing the quality of life is just as important an aspect of Government business as enhancing the standard of living?

Ruth Kelly: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he was clearly not listening to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), in which I made it clear that I recognise the significant contribution that adult education provides and that we should acknowledge its value for its own sake as well as for helping people to get or progress their jobs, which is another important aspect of adult education. That is why we have agreed indicative budgets with the Learning and Skills Council that maintain the level of public funding for adult education, secured through local education authorities. At the moment, many FE colleges do not raise as much as they could from those who are able to contribute towards the cost of their learning, and it is for FE colleges to decide their own charging structure. As I have told the House, we will safeguard the central Government funding for adult education.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be our ambition to be as generous with adult education as we are with higher education? Is she aware that many students are coming into higher education a year early? If they enter in September 2006, their financial package of bursaries and grants—with parents paying nothing and nothing to pay back until the students are earning £15,000—offers them a much better deal. Should we not tell the world about that and point out that the Liberal Democrat voices are misleading?

Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has never been a better time in this country to be a poor but bright student going to college. We are reintroducing grants and ensuring that students have nothing to pay while they are studying, so poor students should aim to go to college: it will be worth their while for the future, as well. My hon. Friend and others should look at the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which pointed out that all students would be better off under our proposals and that they would be £1.5 billion better off under Labour than under the Conservatives.

Tim Collins: Do not the Secretary of State's warm words about adult education, though welcome, fail to conceal the reality that charges are going up and courses are being axed in FE colleges throughout the land? Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) pointed out that his local FE college has seen a 29 per cent. increase in the number of adult learners, but only a 1 per cent. increase in the resources to pay for them—and many other colleges face the same situation. Do not most colleges, including the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), want a return to the days when funding was not linked solely to the outcome of qualifications? Would they not be best advised to vote Conservative?

Ruth Kelly: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Not only are we securing adult education, we are investing heavily in all adult education. As a result, the 15 million adults who need basic skills education to bring them up to level 2 standard in numeracy, and the 5 million who need it to bring them up to level 2 standard in literacy, will get that qualification provided free.
	I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman said, as he told the House last week that the Opposition were committed to matching the Government's overall spending on education and skills. Will he confirm that he now disagrees with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, who this morning pledged to match our funding only on schools? The hon. Gentleman describes himself as a banana—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is fine.

Vera Baird: I have a very specific question. The Budget contained the welcome announcement that an additional £350 million would be made available over two years for what was called the longer-term transformation of the FE sector. Will my right hon. Friend expand on that? Is that money intended to be used for buildings? More specifically, is it likely that some of those resources can be used to enable the excellent Redcar and Cleveland FE college to achieve its ambition to rebuild, with substantially enhanced facilities? That would enable it to continue its excellent work of making available skills provision to those in Redcar who still need it.

Ruth Kelly: I certainly can provide that confirmation. The extra £350 million announced in the Budget means that we will be investing £1.5 billion in the FE sector over the next five years. Our long-term commitment to the FE sector means that colleges throughout the country will be able to provide world-class facilities.

School Funding (Coventry)

Jim Cunningham: How much (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Coventry have received from the Government in each year since the introduction of direct payments.

Ruth Kelly: Between 2001–02 and 2004–05, primary schools in Coventry received a total of £9.8 million in school standards grant. Secondary schools received £6.5 million, and special schools £1.1 million. In addition, in 2000–01, the first year of the grant, Coventry received £1.7 million in school standards grant for distribution to its schools.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. How does Coventry compare with the rest of the country?

Ruth Kelly: Schools in Coventry have received an increase of £990 per pupil since 1997—a rise of 34 per cent. As I understand it, that is more than the average across the rest of the country.

Tim Collins: Why did the Chancellor say in his Budget last week that the continuation of direct payment to schools in Coventry and elsewhere would be a guarantee, when the small print in the Red Book said that the figures were illustrative only? If direct payments to schools are such a good idea, why does not the Secretary of State follow the Conservative policy of making all such payments direct to schools and thus cutting out local education authorities entirely?

Ruth Kelly: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was referring to new money that will be available to schools in 2006–07 and 2007–08. Of course, that will be linked to pupil numbers, so individual schools will have to work out, with their local authority, precisely what their entitlement is. As for Conservative policy, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that transferring money direct to schools would not mean that he would cut the school transport budget?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both sides are at fault in this. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman should not ask about Conservative party policy. That is not one of the Secretary of State's responsibilities, and that is why I gave her some leeway. Moreover, I received notice as to which questions the Opposition spokesman wanted to be allowed to come in on only when I entered the Chamber. I want that information before I enter the House.

Special Schools

Michael Fabricant: How many special schools have closed since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

Tim Boswell: How many special schools have closed since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: In January 1997, there were 1,171 maintained special schools in England. In January 2004, there were 1,078—a reduction of 93. In the seven years preceding 1997, there were 146 closures.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she understand that many parents, including those of children at Queen's Croft special needs school in Lichfield and throughout Staffordshire and the rest of the country, believe that mainstream schools are not necessarily the best solution for their children? They feel that their children might be bullied, embarrassed and would not do as well or thrive as they do in special needs schools. Because of that, will she please reverse the policy that her Government implemented in 2001 and leave the choice of which school children go to to the parents and not to the Government?

Margaret Hodge: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that every child should have the opportunity to learn in a school that meets their needs and is their parents' choice. That is the policy of this Government. We have no policy whatever to close special schools. On the other hand, the Conservative party has a policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Tim Boswell.

Tim Boswell: Further to the Minister's somewhat truncated reply, while I join her in accepting that for many pupils with special educational needs their inclusion in mainstream education is appropriate and often successful, will she acknowledge that some parents believe that their children need special education? Does she appreciate that that requires an adequate network of special schools to meet their needs and that those special schools can function not only to serve the children but as a centre of excellence for the inclusion of children in mainstream schools?

Margaret Hodge: Of course I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said, which precisely reflects the Government's policy. I draw his attention to the fact that 88 special schools closed when he was a member of the education team in government in 1991. That is almost the same number that have closed throughout this Government's period in office. If a voucher followed children, how would that meet the cost of a child being educated in a special school where the cost far exceeds the £5,500 value of the voucher?

Valerie Davey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when a special school such as Claremont school in my constituency is on the same site as mainstream schooling, that offers a rich environment? Would she congratulate the head of that school, Bob Coburn—he has been congratulated by Ofsted for his inspired leadership—and all the staff for all they do in conjunction with mainstream schooling on that site?

Margaret Hodge: I do congratulate the school in my hon. Friend's constituency. One of the policy developments that we wish to see is that the specialist knowledge, training and experience that exists among staff in special schools should be shared with colleagues who are educating children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The appropriate co-location of two schools in her constituency is absolutely the direction in which we wish to go. The fact that we have announced the first 12 specialist special schools demonstrates again the way in which we wish to share expertise from the special school sector with the mainstream sector for all children, but particularly children with special educational needs.

Peter Pike: Although three special schools in Burnley will close soon, is it not good and exciting news that we will spend £30 million on new special schools to serve Burnley and Pendle? Last week, Lancashire county council and the Government confirmed five brand new schools for Burnley and a new sixth form. That is an exciting vision and an opportunity for Burnley, which we never had from the Conservative Government.

Margaret Hodge: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's words and congratulate all those in Burnley who are using the resources being made available to them for the benefit of Burnley families and Burnley children. A number of the special schools that are closing will reorganise themselves into new schools with up-to-date, 21st-century facilities to provide individualised learning that is particularly appropriate for children with special educational needs.

Laurence Robertson: I do not think that the children of Alderman Knight school in my constituency, whose closure has been announced this morning, or the children of Belmont school in Cheltenham will be too impressed by the Minister's platitudes this morning. Why did she not mention those schools when she gave her inadequate answers? What will happen to the children of those schools, many of whom are physically disabled? The Minister's answer this morning was not only inadequate, it was dishonest. She misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark.

Laurence Robertson: I am here to represent my constituents. I will not withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Then the hon. Gentleman must leave the Chamber—[Interruption.] Order.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two special schools in Keighley, Braithwaite and Branshaw, are in an extremely seedy condition? They have been neglected by both the local authority and Education Bradford. I have been given assurances that they will be repaired and improved, but it will be another two or three years before we have two new schools. The new schools will be on shared sites with an upper school and a primary school. I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) has said about shared sites, but a number of parents are very concerned about their children attending a shared site because of the possibility of bullying.

Margaret Hodge: I completely understand the issues that have been raised. I, too, have faced a reorganisation of special schools in my constituency and change is undoubtedly difficult for everybody, but especially for the parents and children who are currently in those schools. I hope that my hon. Friend's local authority will handle that change sensitively, but I am sure that when the new schools are built and the new facilities available, the opportunities for all children in that area, including those who need or want to attend a special school, will be enhanced. The work that can take place between the special school and the mainstream school will add value to the experience of every child involved.

Angela Watkinson: The Government's ideological obsession with inclusion has led to the closure of 70 special schools since 1997. The NASUWT says that the resources are not there for individual teachers in mainstream schools to deal with individual special needs pupils. The spectrum of special needs is very wide and parents should be free to choose between a mainstream and a special school setting for their children. The Conservatives value the expertise and skills of special schools and we will impose a moratorium on closures. Will the Minister give the same guarantee, including the two additional special school closures that were announced today in Gloucestershire, one in Cirencester and one in Cheltenham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)?

Margaret Hodge: For our part, we believe in providing real choice, both for children and for their parents. An ideological obsession, either pro-closure or anti-closure, inhibits that choice for every individual child and family. I share some of the views expressed by the hon. Lady, but I cannot accept from her the claim that she would give freedom to local authorities and local communities but would also impose a ban on any closure of a special school, regardless of whether it had unfilled places, or was needed or wanted locally. I cannot understand her idea that parents would have the freedom to choose if she would ensure that only £5,500 would be available for each child. How can she explain—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PFI Projects

Ben Chapman: What assessment she has made of her Department's private finance initiative projects in Wirral, South.

John Mann: Whether private finance initiative deals for new schools agreed by her Department but as yet unsigned could be cancelled by an incoming Government.

Ivan Lewis: I understand that services have commenced in all seven Wirral secondary schools and that its primary school will be operational by September. Support for local authority PFI projects is provisional until the contract is signed, and an incoming Government could cancel any planned investment that had not been finally committed. However, the Government are committed to long-term investment in schools, including through PFI, as shown by the Chancellor's recent Budget statement.

Ben Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that three schools in my constituency have recently been freed from the shambles that was Jarvis project management? Notwithstanding that shambles and the considerable hardship, delay, inconvenience, financial implications and other issues, all the schools have variously managed to increase their standards, maintain their charter mark, add another speciality to a college specialism and generally keep going through difficult times. Will my hon. Friend join me in the hope that the new arrangements through Wirral school services will mean better times ahead, and that the new contractors, having taken stock of what needs to be done, in two schools in particular, especially taking into account health and safety issues, will make due progress and make full use of the immediate school holidays and those to come to reach as satisfactory and speedy a conclusion as possible?

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and congratulate him and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), on securing that record level of capital investment in Wirral schools. The PFI programme will bring about the replacement of two schools and the extension and refurbishment of seven schools in Wirral. I am glad that the contractual problems have been resolved, and am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the real-terms increase in per pupil funding for Wirral is £1,050, a 37 per cent. increase since 1997–98, and that the amount for capital in 2004–05 was £13.3 million, compared with £3.3 million in 1996–97. That is a very good reason for the people of Wirral to vote Labour at the next election.

John Mann: For the first time ever, Bassetlaw is top of the class for schools money, with the PFI money for new schools, the plans for 10 new children's centres and the eagerly anticipated rebuilding of many primary schools following the Budget. Can my hon. Friend foresee any circumstances in which the hopes and aspirations of my constituents, who have waited 70 years for that investment, could be dashed by the Government?

Ivan Lewis: I can foresee such circumstances: if the people of Bassetlaw and elsewhere do not vote Labour at the next general election.

Exclusions

Henry Bellingham: Whether she plans to give greater weight to the views of head teachers on exclusions.

Stephen Twigg: We give great weight to head teachers' views, expressed individually or through their associations, when formulating exclusions policy. We back head teachers' authority where pupils' behaviour warrants exclusion and have reformed appeal panels to strike a better balance between the interests of the individual and those of the school.

Henry Bellingham: What do the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers have in common? They all support the policy that head teachers should have the final say on exclusions. Why will not the hon. Gentleman and his ministerial team listen to what professionals in the classroom are saying? Is not that the reason why Labour's support among teachers is haemorrhaging every day?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The SHA has a policy of full support for the appeal panels; John Dunford is on record as supporting our stance. The only union that the hon. Gentleman listed that has a clear policy with which he would agree is the NASUWT. As for our support among teachers, the poll in The Times Educational Supplement to which I think he was referring showed that support among teachers for the Conservative party had fallen from 10 to 9 per cent.

John Gummer: Despite all that, I wonder whether the Minister might apply himself to the real fact: many head teachers feel that on those most difficult occasions they do not have the power, authority or support to make decisions that are very tough for a head to make. Those decisions should be entirely in their hands, if schools in some of the most difficult areas, which are to be found in many of our constituencies, are to be run in a way that gives responsibility to the head.

Stephen Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful contribution, and it is absolutely fair to say that head teachers often operate in very challenging circumstances. That is why we reformed the appeal panels in the light of the concerns that have been raised—for example, by the Secondary Heads Association—to give much greater weight to the views of those on appeal panels with direct experience, including head teachers.
	I should like to share with the House the fact that in the most recent year for which we have figures—2002–03—there were more than 9,000 exclusions, about 10 per cent. of which were appealed. The total number of successful appeals was 149. We must have an appeals system in the interests of natural justice. That view is shared by the Secondary Heads Association, but I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to give clear support to head teachers in what is often a challenging job for them in many of our schools.

Mark Hoban: Is it not the reality of the Government's plan to force every school to take on excluded pupils that they will give head teachers less say on exclusions, but is it not right to give them the final word on exclusions in the interests of those children who want learn but who may have been prevented from doing so by the amount of disruption in our classrooms?

Stephen Twigg: We are indeed working with schools so that they can collaborate locally to ensure the best possible pupil behaviour. That has been welcomed by head teachers, the other unions and school governors, and we should work together to ensure that that approach is successful. Ultimately, if we do not have appeal panels, parents will go to court. Do we really want our court system clogged up with parents appealing against such decisions? I understand that the Conservative party has said that it will deal with that by denying legal aid to parents who want to go to court. In other words, the Conservatives are saying that only rich kids will be able to appeal in those circumstances; poorer kids will not be able to do so. Our system may be imperfect, but it is the best one on offer to ensure the right balance between the needs of the schools and those of the individual pupil.

Mathematics Teaching

Nick Gibb: If she will make a statement on the teaching of mathematics in primary and secondary schools.

Derek Twigg: Her Majesty's chief inspector's latest annual report shows that the quality of mathematics teaching and learning is good or better in about seven in 10 primary schools; about seven in 10 schools at key stage 3; just under two thirds at key stage 4; and about eight in 10 school sixth forms. Relative to other subjects, mathematics is above average at most key stages.

Nick Gibb: A quarter of 11-year-olds are still not reaching level 4 in maths, and Britain is a poor 18th out of 41 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to the latest study under the programme for international student assessment, which focused on maths. Does the Minister agree that every child should be taught multiplication tables by rote and be able to respond effortlessly to every multiplication table question up to the 12 times table, so that if I were to ask him what seven sixes are, he would effortlessly know that the answer is 42?

Derek Twigg: The answer is yes. Ofsted's latest mathematics subject report says that the teaching and learning of mathematics continues to be a strength in primary schools.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the Government on what they are doing in primary education—taking mathematics teaching seriously after decades of neglect—and our children are definitely improving. However, are not different teaching methods still used in primary schools, some of which work better than others? Is it not time to be prescriptive about precisely how maths is taught in primary schools? Indeed, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on this subject. Is it not time to research precisely what works and to ensure that every school uses the best methods?

Derek Twigg: Obviously, to an extent, we have to be prescriptive in terms of the numeracy hour, but I want to reiterate that we have seen a 12 percentage point rise in success rates since 1997, and that Ofsted says that the teaching and learning of mathematics continues to be a strength in our primary schools.

Vocational Training

John McWilliam: What plans she has to increase the take-up of vocational training in schools and colleges.

Ruth Kelly: In both the skills White Paper and the 14 to 19 White Paper, we have set out a series of reforms that should lead to an increase in the number of people undertaking vocational training in schools and colleges. Our plans for specialised diplomas, access to high quality training facilities and targeted support for employers and individuals will make a real difference to vocational training.

John McWilliam: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but may I put to her the fact that, in too many schools, those pupils who wish to undertake a vocational course are still not regarded with the same esteem as those pupils who wish to undertake an academic course? May I also put it to her that the real wealth of this country is based on those pupils who complete a vocational course, rather than those who complete an academic course?

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. May I say how much I have valued his contribution to the House over the years, not least during our dealings in the Finance Committee? It is imperative that we raise the esteem of vocational training and that our young people realise that vocational training and education is valued in our society. I think that we can do that by involving employers and higher education institutions in the design of the curriculum that young people follow. They can thus learn the subjects that they want to learn in the way in which they want to and in the place that motivates them. When we achieve that, rationalise vocational and academic qualifications and introduce new specialised diplomas that are recognised by young people, parents, employers and the higher education sector, we will transform the opportunities available for young people.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the Government on now taking seriously vocational training, and thank them for what they are doing. However, how would the Secretary of State respond to Mr. Mark Vinall of South East Essex college, who asked me yesterday why in the White Paper the Government have failed to meet the needs of vocational learners? He states that they are protecting A-levels at the expense of vocational learners and that that is a missed opportunity. How would she respond to Mark Vinall's comments?

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, although I am now a bit confused about whether he supports the 14 to 19 reforms. We have preserved the best of both by preserving qualifications—A-levels and GCSEs—that are recognised by parents and valued by employers and HE institutions, and combining the opportunity to study for those qualifications with truly high-quality vocational training. Such vocational training will be designed by employers and the HE sector so that there are real routes for progression. When we combine the best of both, we will offer young people, for the first time, a high-quality, valued route including vocational training.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Is it not the case that people have been confused for years because of the morass of vocational qualifications and that that has led to their devaluation in the marketplace as seen by parents, users and employers? Addressing that is thus the key to success in achieving parity of esteem. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that a key factor is the fact that places such as Rochdale are offering the education maintenance allowance for the first time, which means that it now has the highest staying-on rate in its history and the biggest take-up of EMA in the north-west? Will she give us more information about the eight pilots that are to be rolled out throughout the country, which were announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, that will give £75 to people who have not stayed on in education or training in order to encourage them to do such education or training? To my mind, and certainly to that of my constituents, that will be of huge benefit when trying to ratchet up skills, as well as educational attainment.

Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend—as always she is spot-on. At present there are 3,500 vocational qualifications, which makes things confusing for employers and HE institutions, and most confusing for the pupils themselves because they do not know which courses will lead on to further qualifications, or the right courses to pursue for their careers. She is right to draw attention to the education maintenance allowance. Our pilots show that the staying-on rates among young people in the target groups drawing EMA increased by 5.9 per cent. That is why the announcement in the Budget that we will pilot a combination of such allowances and children's benefits to attract young people who are currently not in education, employment or training to do some real training, which will in turn get them a job, has the potential of ensuring that all young people stay in training or learning of one form or another right up to the age of 18 and beyond.

Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend comment on a headline in a newsletter that has been widely circulated in my constituency, which reads, "Fees for school sixth forms planned for Blair's 3rd term"? Is there any foundation at all for such a headline?

Ruth Kelly: Absolutely none.

Repayment of Teachers' Loans Scheme

Colin Challen: What recent representations she has received about the annual review mechanism of the repayment of teachers' loans scheme.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations, including one from my hon. Friend, appealing against the removal of individual teachers from the repayment of teachers' loans scheme as a result of failure to complete the annual review process.

Colin Challen: May I respectfully remind my hon. Friend of the correspondence that I entered into last month about the case of my constituent, Emma Seymour, who did not return her form in time, because it was sent to the wrong address? She claims that she told the Student Loans Company that she had informed it of her change of address, but it did not have any proof. It is difficult to prove that one has informed someone of a change of address. Does he agree that the rules are designed to penalise fraud, and are not meant to penalise bona fide hard-working student teachers? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the case to see whether there is a way through?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend will know that the annual review mechanism was built into the RTL scheme because it is essential that teachers verify annually their eligibility for the scheme to safeguard the large amount of public funds that are involved. I understand that, partly as a consequence of discussions about this case, including my hon. Friend's strenuous efforts, the SLC has undertaken to review the appeals procedure in such cases, including Miss Seymour's. It has said that any changes that are to the advantage of the cases under review will be implemented without delay. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that he will be able to meet the appropriate Minister from my Department.

Teaching Staff (York)

Hugh Bayley: What the change in the number of (a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants in schools in York has been since 1997.

Stephen Twigg: The number of full-time equivalent teachers in York local education authority has increased by 100 since January 1997 to 1,390. The number of teaching assistants has more than doubled by 260 to 400 over the same period.

Hugh Bayley: I am very pleased that York schools have more teachers and, as a result, smaller class sizes. Does the Minister agree, however, that the quality of teaching is just as important as the number of teachers? Can he tell the House what help the Government are giving teachers to enable them to keep training throughout their professional careers, so that they continue to improve the quality of the lessons that they give children?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ofsted has said that we have the best-ever generation of newly qualified teachers, which is clearly a cause for optimism. The House is currently considering the Education Bill, which will extend the remit of the Teacher Training Agency to oversee teachers' continuing professional development. That will be extremely important in ensuring that we continue to have the very best teachers.

Anne McIntosh: When I visit schools in my constituency head teachers tell me that they are deeply concerned that the amount of core funding relating to the employment, recruitment and retention of teachers has gone down under the Government. There are more grants than core funding, which does not provide the security that head teachers would like. What is the Minister doing about that?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Lady is right that there are concerns about the number of ring-fenced grants for which schools must apply, which is why we are moving to a system of a single grant for schools. We are consulting with schools, teachers and local education authorities to give schools the simplicity and the certainty that the heads in her constituency would like.

Education Funding (Shire Counties)

Peter Luff: What assessment she has made of the relative needs of English shire counties for education funding.

Derek Twigg: The new formula for education funding was introduced in 2003–04 after an extensive programme of work by the Department for Education and Skills and its partners. The working group considered almost 100 papers, many of which discussed those aspects of the formula that deal with the relative needs of authorities for education funding. There was also a 12-week consultation on the proposals, and Ministers considered the many thousands of replies very carefully before they took decisions.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Minister, but we are getting desperate in Worcestershire. We have tried every trick in the book to get a fairer share of education funding, but it does not seem to be working. I am grateful to the Minister for School Standards for agreeing to see a group from Worcestershire shortly to discuss the issue. Before that meeting, perhaps the Under-Secretary could persuade his colleague to speak to the secret weapon that Worcestershire now has at the heart of Government? I can reveal that the Secretary of State's excellent education foundations were partly laid down in Worcestershire at St. Mary's Catholic school in Broadway. I hope that the daughter of Worcestershire is our secret weapon at the heart of Government and is the final straw that breaks the camel's back, giving the county the justice that it has been lacking for so long.

Derek Twigg: I have followed the discussions both as a Whip and since becoming a Minister. There have been many discussions, questions and debates about the matter and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I am glad that he is due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards shortly. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we have no intention of making significant changes to the proposed funding arrangements.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that Derbyshire is a shire county, and that it has received funding equivalent to more than three times the rate of inflation during the past eight years? As a result, there have been 105 new projects for schools in my constituency during those eight years—more than in the previous 25 years put together, since I was a Member of the House. The most famous school to be replaced is the one that was held up by pit props in those dreary 18 years of the Tory Government. Now, that Church of England school will be transformed into a brand-new school on a different site. That is the truth of what has happened in the past eight years in a mining community that was almost blasted apart by the Tories. No wonder the unemployment is down to less than 4 per cent.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. The choice is between Labour, under which we continue to invest in schools and improve standards, and the Tory system, which transfers money from state schools to independent schools.

Edward Garnier: May I tell the Minister that we in Leicestershire will soon beborrowing the pit props from Derbyshire? Leicestershire is at the bottom of the funding list of all county local education authorities in England. It does not cost any less to educate a child in Leicestershire than it does in Derbyshire, Worcestershire or any other county. What is the reason for Leicestershire being at the bottom of the Department's funding list?

Derek Twigg: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to get to the Adjournment debate that I replied to in the Chamber a few weeks ago. I am sure he will understand and accept that there has been a significant increase in funding for schools in Leicestershire, not just per pupil, but in terms of capital. We have a system which ensures that most funding goes to the areas that are most deprived and most in need of it.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the discussions that took place in Cheshire, when Halton and Warrington became unitary authorities. That exposed the way in which education funding had been distributed by previous Administrations. Will my hon. Friend ensure that within counties, the distribution takes into account the needs of poorer districts in the county, and that moneys that the Government provide are properly passported through to meet the needs of schools in deprived areas?

Derek Twigg: I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of that in his constituency and in Cheshire. It is clear that our funding formula ensures that the funding is fair, objective and gets to the places where it is most needed. It also provides three-year stability for education authorities and schools, so they know what funding is available to them, allowing them to provide the best possible education and all-round school improvements.

Employees' Skills

Jane Griffiths: What steps she is taking to improve the skills base of employees.

Ivan Lewis: On Tuesday the Secretary of State announced a new skills White Paper. The White Paper demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving the skills of employees to meet the current and future needs of employers and further strengthen our productivity and competitiveness in a global marketplace. Recently we also launched our 14 to 19 proposals.

Jane Griffiths: When the proposals contained in the very welcome White Paper are developed, will my hon. Friend and his colleagues give particular attention to areas such as the Thames Valley, which are net importers of labour and suffer, perhaps excessively, from a skills shortage?

Ivan Lewis: I reassure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. We have a journey to travel in vocational education, but we ought to celebrate the fact that this year we have a record 270,000 young people participating in apprenticeships, 100,000 young people studying GCSEs in vocational studies, and 90,000 young people participating in the 14-to-16 increased flexibility programme. With the unveiling of the national skills academies only this week, we are beginning to build an infrastructure that will give us excellent high-quality vocational education for the first time.
	It is also important to focus on the significant additional resources for investment in further education that the Chancellor announced in the Budget. We can now bring together the skills academies, centres of vocational excellence and specialist schools.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Military Personnel (Court Cases)

Gordon Prentice: How many times since 2001 the Attorney-General has decided to bring cases involving military personnel through the civilian courts.

Harriet Harman: Between 2001 and 2004, the Attorney-General transferred no cases involving military personnel to civilian courts. Since 2004, there have been two cases where he has decided, with the agreement of the Army Prosecuting Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service, that the appropriate jurisdiction should be the civilian system.

Gordon Prentice: I am grateful for that answer but may I ask my friend whether it is standard practice that, where a case against a soldier has been dismissed as unfounded by his commanding officer and the case nevertheless goes to trial in the civilian courts, the commanding officer is asked to give evidence?

Harriet Harman: If a case goes before a Crown court in England and Wales in relation to an indictment of offences alleged to have been committed by Army service personnel serving overseas, the question whether the commanding officer will give evidence depends on whether he has evidence that is relevant to whether the offence has been committed.

John Burnett: Our troops can be deployed in all-out combat and, within days or a shorter period, on internal security operations. Cases are sometimes dismissed by commanding officers and unit commanders. What safeguards are there against double jeopardy and what account is taken of the unique stress and dangers that confront our armed forces on active service?

Harriet Harman: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that he will be retiring should there be a general election and that it may be the last time that he asks a question as spokesperson for his party. I should like to say that it has been a great pleasure to work with him and I wish him all the best.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, there is no double jeopardy. If a serving member of Army personnel is brought before a court martial and he is acquitted, there are no further proceedings. Under the doctrine of autrefois acquit, he will not face any other tribunals. Similarly, there are no further proceedings if he is convicted. Therefore, there is no question of double jeopardy. Of course, if a matter is referred to the Attorney-General, in deciding whether it is appropriate to refer it to the CPS, my noble and learned Friend and the CPS will look at all the relevant circumstances, but it is important that the rule of law applies to serving personnel whether they are in the UK or outside it on duty.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that, in both cases, the reason for the transfer to civilian courts was that the commanding officers ruled that the person should not be prosecuted in military courts. She may agree that that has the unintended consequence of depriving those soldiers of the opportunity of trial by court martial, which exists for the very reason that it is considered to be a forum that will best understand the pressures that soldiers may be under, particularly in combat. Do we not therefore have an anomalous situation? If the commanding officer's veto is there for a good reason, the Attorney-General should not be doing what he is doing. If there is not a good reason for that veto, should we not be changing the law?

Harriet Harman: No, we should not. The situation is not anomalous; it is one of concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, proceedings can go ahead either in courts martial or in a civilian court. However, there can be many reasons why it is regarded as not appropriate to take a case before a court martial and why it is believed that the civilian courts are the better tribunal to deal with the matter. I do not think that that needs to be changed.

ASBOs (North Yorkshire)

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the breaching of antisocial behaviour orders in North Yorkshire.

Harriet Harman: I spoke yesterday to Dan Jones, who is the Crown Prosecution Service antisocial behaviour co-ordinator in North Yorkshire.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that answer. Can the Solicitor-General confirm that those who breach an antisocial behaviour order in North Yorkshire are brought to court? If that does not happen, there is no merit in issuing an antisocial behaviour order in the first instance.
	I thank the Solicitor-General for responding to my Adjournment debate last week, but when does she plan to write to me about the outstanding questions that we did not have time to discuss during that debate?

Harriet Harman: I shall write to the hon. Lady very shortly about the outstanding issues from last week's debate; in fact, I shall try to do so before the House rises for the Easter recess. She is absolutely right: it is important not only that antisocial behaviour orders are made in appropriate cases, but that they are enforced. If people think that no action will follow when such an order is breached, there will simply be no currency or value in it. It is important that breaches should be reported to the local authorities and the police, who should work together, as they do in North Yorkshire, to ensure that such orders are made in appropriate cases and that they are taken seriously.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that antisocial behaviour orders should be used only as a method of last resort and that the staged approach used in south Wales of first sending a letter to parents or issuing young people with a football-style warning card has been very successful and has meant that fewer antisocial behaviour orders are issued? Is she aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee has strongly endorsed that approach?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, the first and most important thing is to ensure that there is no antisocial behaviour. If such behaviour can be dealt with other than by the courts, that is preferable—certainly in the case of young people, whom we want to divert from the court process while making sure that they do not carry on committing antisocial behaviour. However, if they do not accede to those warnings, it is important that they and everyone else in the system should understand that court action is there to back up the law against antisocial behaviour.

Commission for Africa (Financial Crimes)

Hugh Bayley: What action the Law Officers' Departments are taking to implement the recommendations of the Commission for Africa on combating financial crimes including bribery and corruption.

Harriet Harman: The Law Officers' Departments are working closely with other Government Departments and agencies to implement the important recommendations made by the Commission for Africa on combating bribery and corruption.

Hugh Bayley: The Commission for Africa calls on developed countries such as ours fully to implement the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's action statement on bribery, to take all necessary legal and administrative measures to repatriate state funds illicitly acquired from developing countries and to ratify and implement the UN convention against corruption during 2005. At the launch of the report, the Prime Minister signalled that the UK will implement all the commission's recommendations. Will the Solicitor-General examine whether the Serious Fraud Office, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service have sufficient resources to do so, and will she write to let me know her conclusions?

Harriet Harman: I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend. Those agencies—the Crown Prosecution Service, the SFO and SOCA, when it comes into existence—will be key in implementing the OECD's recommendations. The SFO and the CPS are considering how to do that.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with Transparency International. There is now a widespread recognition that fighting corruption involves those who offer bribes as well as those who receive them; the Commission for Africa and the OECD have emphasised that. As for ratification of those individual points, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we will ratify all those conventions and, having done so, will put them firmly into action.

Iraq (Legal Advice)

Bob Spink: What recent representations she has received on publishing the Attorney-General's advice on the Iraq war.

Harriet Harman: Since 1 January 2005, my office has received 20 requests for disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of military action against Iraq. Those requests have been received from hon. Members, journalists and members of the public.

Bob Spink: Does the Solicitor-General accept that the Government's continued refusal to publish that advice has put the trust and integrity of the Prime Minister right at the centre of this general election?

Harriet Harman: No, I do not. The Government's position is consistent with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which was passed by this House and which contains an exemption that was accepted without demur in this House for legal professional privilege. That exemption has been accepted under the ministerial code as recently as when there was discussion of the Freedom of Information Act. It was also accepted by previous Administrations, and it is what the Government are acting under.

Attorney-General (Advice on Iraq)

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement about the circumstances surrounding the letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Wilmshurst and the Attorney-General's change of opinion on the legality of military action in Iraq?

Jack Straw: Let me take the two parts of the question in turn: first, the circumstances surrounding Ms Wilmshurst's letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's legal adviser of 18 March 2003.
	Elizabeth Wilmshurst was one of the deputy legal advisers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As is now well known, she submitted her resignation on 18 March 2003 because she disagreed—I quote from her minute of that date—that it was
	"lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678".
	Given that difference of views, her resignation was an honourable course to take and in accordance with the civil service code.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received a number of requests for the text of Ms Wilmshurst's letter under the Freedom of Information Act, which came into force on 1 January this year. These requests were initially refused, mainly because much of the content of Ms Wilmshurst's letter contained personal data, the disclosure of which would have contravened the first data protection principle under section 40 of the Act.
	Following the publication in The Guardian on 23 February of a number of quotations from the letter, however, we took the view that disclosure of this information would no longer contravene the first data protection principle. We therefore disclosed the letter yesterday. Two sentences were however omitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the document because their content concerned the provision of legal advice in relation to the use of force against Iraq. Regardless of whether these references were accurate, this information was covered by exemptions in the Act that apply to confidential legal advice and the formulation or development of Government policy. Some were also covered by exemptions for ministerial communications and for Law Officers' advice.
	It was entirely proper for the Government to withhold information under the provisions of this Act. Indeed, as the Minister who was responsible for taking what was then the Freedom of Information Bill through Parliament, I can recall no suggestion from any party in the House that the Government's legal advice should not be exempt from such disclosure.
	Let me now turn to the second aspect of the question: the Attorney-General's opinion on the legality of military action in Iraq. This whole question is covered extensively in Lord Butler's report on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction at paragraphs 366 to 387, and I commend those paragraphs to the House. Ms Wilmshurst gave evidence to the Butler inquiry, and the substance of her position, then as now, is covered in paragraph 376 of the report.
	In the light of Saddam's failure to comply with his very clear obligations, set out in United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 of November 2002, the United Kingdom, United States and Spain tabled in February 2003 a further draft resolution in the Security Council, posing tough but attainable tests for Iraq. That gave Saddam Hussein the final opportunity to comply, which was offered by resolution 1441.
	I attended a series of ministerial Security Council meetings in the early months of 2003, the last of which was on 7 March 2003. As I said in my speech to the Security Council on that day, not a single member of the Security Council disputed that Saddam was in material breach of his obligations under resolution 1441 and preceding resolutions. He had not fully complied with the clear obligations set out in 1441 and the preceding resolutions.
	The Attorney-General, in his written answer of 17 March 2003, gave what he has described as his genuinely and independently held view that military action in Iraq was lawful on the basis of Saddam's breach of the then existing UN resolutions. As he then said, authority to use force against Iraq derived from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. A large majority of the House supported on 18 March 2003 the Government's motion before the House to take military action in respect of Iraq, in view of Saddam Hussein's continued failure to comply with his clear obligations, imposed by the Security Council.

Dominic Grieve: May I say that I am intrigued and a little puzzled that the Foreign Secretary is replying to this question, which was directed to the Law Officers?
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the censored paragraph removed from Ms Wilmshurst's letter of resignation, and shown on Channel 4 yesterday, has now been revealed? Why was it covered up? Does he agree that it shows clearly that until 7 March, the Attorney-General held identical views to those of the Foreign Office legal team that the use of force against Iraq required a further UN resolution or it would be unlawful, irrespective of whatever previous resolutions there had been? What, then, made the Attorney-General change his mind? What change of law or fact enabled him to alter his stance?
	Ms Wilmshurst's note further makes clear that the Attorney-General's position changed twice. Why did that happen? Why did his continuing doubts, which we now know were present in his letter of 7 March, as he believed that a decision to go to war might be challenged in the courts, change into complete certainty of legality, apparently following his meeting with Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan on 13 March? What was said in the intervening period? What happened to enable him to alter his position?
	Does the Foreign Secretary not realise how corrosive the entire episode is to trust in Government? It would be far better were the entire paper trail to be published, to reassure the public that the Attorney-General was neither leant on to change his views for party political reasons, nor deceived by the Prime Minister on the facts on which war might be justified.

Jack Straw: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in turn. First, on why we refused to publish those two sentences, I have set out the reasons. The issue for the whole House, and not least the shadow Attorney-General, is whether he and his party are now moving from a clear position that Law Officers' advice should not be published to proposing that Law Officers' advice, and that which contributes to it, should be published.
	I draw the House's attention to the fact that when a similar issue arose, albeit in respect of a different subject—legal advice in respect of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty—the then Attorney-General set out clearly that he could not recall any occasion when the Law Officers' advice had been disclosed, and would not break precedent.
	When we discussed the issue of the Freedom of Information Bill in the House, the House as a whole was absolutely clear that legal advice, and the background to that legal advice, should not be disclosed, for very good reasons. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying, on behalf of his party, that that should change, he had better say so; but the implications for good government are very grave indeed.
	The hon. Gentleman then made a wholly tendentious claim based on his reading of Ms Wilmshurst's letter. He said that it showed clearly that the Attorney-General had one view on 7 March and a different view later. He asked what change of law or fact had taken place. The letter showed nothing of the kind—but yes, there was a change of fact, which was before the House on 18 March. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the resolution in favour of military action on 18 March, seems to have forgotten that.
	Throughout the period following the passage of resolution 1441, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I, every other member of this Government and, indeed, all the Governments who later formed the coalition were seeking to ensure that there was clear compliance by Saddam with the obligations imposed on him by resolution 1441 and the resolutions that preceded it. When it became clear that that was not the case, we worked night and day for a second resolution. We did not work night and day for a second resolution because it was required by the terms of resolution 1441: it was not. I can go into the negotiating history of resolution 1441 in very great detail. I can point out to the House that France proposed at one stage that there should indeed be a lock requiring a second resolution in resolution 1441, but backed off from that proposal. Everyone who knows the text of resolution 1441, and that of operative paragraphs 4, 12 and 13 in particular, will know that there was no requirement whatever for a second resolution. We sought a second resolution because we sought a consensus in the Security Council, and what changed between 7 and 17 March was this: it became very clear that that consensus was not possible.
	The hon. Gentleman's last point concerned the effect of refusing to disclose the Attorney-General's advice. The Attorney-General's advice was before the Butler inquiry. The Attorney-General gave advice to the Butler inquiry, and so, as I have said, did Ms Wilmshurst. That was the appropriate setting in which to examine the advice in detail. Lord Butler concluded that the Attorney-General had given clear and categorical advice to the Cabinet, and that in his judgment it was lawful under resolution 1441 to use force without a further United Nations Security Council resolution. That was the position after full examination, and that is the position now.

Michael Moore: The Secretary-General of the United Nations himself has said that the war in Iraq was illegal, so it is hardly a surprise that the Attorney-General started from that point as well. It would not be the first occasion in history when a lawyer had changed his mind and his advice, but there was no change in the legal position during the period before the country went to war; nor was there a material change in the facts, such as evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
	Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether there is a formal written justification documenting the shift in the Attorney-General's position, which occurred not once but twice? Can he tell us whether the final advice of the Attorney-General was consistent with the independent external advice that the Government received? If not, is it not the case that the full text of Elizabeth Wilmshurst's resignation letter has now completely undermined the Government's position on the war in Iraq?

Jack Straw: We are all aware of what the Secretary-General of the United Nations said. It emphasises the fact that on this issue there were disagreements about the legal position. That is well known—but the truth is that there are often disagreements about legal positions and legal advice. There are disagreements in respect of matters of domestic law, on which the law is always more certain; still more are there disagreements in respect of matters of international law. These judgments were held independently, they were held honourably, and they were well known in advance of the debate on 18 March and the House's decision to take military action. With great respect to Ms Wilmshurst, what she has said in the letter and in the evidence that she gave to Lord Butler does not change that position one iota. It was a matter of debate. But, while I respect those people who took a different view, the truth is that the view of the British Attorney-General was widely shared across the world—not just by the Law Officers' equivalent in the United States, but by many other Governments. There was just a genuine difference of opinion.
	That answers the hon. Gentleman's first and third points. He also said that there was no material change in the facts. I am sorry, but he was not at the Security Council five times between January and March 2003, and I was. There was a significant change in the facts. We had hoped in early January was that there was going to be full compliance by Saddam with the terms of the resolution. He was given a very clear obligation to do so. It became clear, however, not least on 7 March in the 173-page document submitted to the Security Council at the end of that meeting by Dr. Hans Blix, with 29 separate respects, talking about unanswered disarmament issues. I put this before the House on 18 March. It spelled out in detail, if any were needed, why Saddam was failing to comply with his clear obligations. Those facts were on the record and they have never been contradicted since. That was the judgment of UNMOVIC, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. We did not need intelligence to make our judgment before the House on 18 March; we could see for ourselves that Saddam was in further material breach, and, as I pointed out to the Security Council on 7 March, there was not a single Minister around the table at the Security Council at that stage—even on 7 March—who was denying that Saddam was not fully in compliance with his obligations.
	What also changed between 7 and 17 March, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) a moment ago, was that we were hoping against hope for a second resolution and we did not get one. We still judged that Saddam was in material breach, and that was the basis on which the House came to its view on 18 March.

Donald Anderson: The Attorney-General said on 23 February this year that, in his parliamentary reply of 17 March, he had explained his "genuinely held, independent view" that military action was lawful, and that he had not been leant on in any way. If the critics are now saying that he was lying—a very serious charge to make against any Minister, particularly the Attorney-General—that his view was not independent or genuinely held and, indeed, that he had been leant on, let them say so openly.

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend about that. All of us have every respect for Members of all parties on both sides of the House who took a different view on the rightness of taking military action and who voted against the Government on 18 March. What is far less impressive is the position into which the official Opposition now appear to be manoeuvring themselves. They are using this entirely spurious issue as a smokescreen to avoid their own responsibility for the fact that they voted for this military action. They voted openly for it, and they voted on the basis of the clear and public information before the House that Saddam was in clear, fundamental material breach of his obligations. They might not like it, but it happens to be true.

Teddy Taylor: As one of those who did not vote for the war on Iraq, may I sincerely ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks that this disclosure will have a dreadful effect on the parents and relatives of those who have lost their lives in this conflict? Does not he genuinely believe that this problem of credibility will go on and on, unless the Government are prepared to publish all the documents involved? Would not that be the right way to deal with the problem, instead of letting it go on and on, as it inevitably will?

Jack Straw: No, I do not, for this reason. The Attorney-General's legal advice was clear. It was known. It was reflected in the view of his advice, which he put before the House of Lords on 17 March, and which I repeated in this House, along with a longer explanation of the basis of his view in respect of the legality. His view was that it was lawful for us to take military action in respect of Iraq. That was the view that he came to at that stage. He was examined in very great detail by Lord Butler, and Lord Butler confirms his view. There is a very much wider issue about whether the House should go down the road of requiring the advice of Attorneys-General to be made public. As I have said, when the matter was debated by the House, and for very, very good reasons, not one Member of this House ever suggested that the exemption for legal advice proposed in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be removed. It is there for very good reasons and nothing material has changed. Indeed, just to underline the paucity of the view taken by the shadow Attorney-General, in this particular case, unusually, what was made known to the House was the view of the Attorney-General set out in that written answer of 17 March. When Lord Butler examined the Attorney-General in detail, he also confirmed that that was his view.

Ross Cranston: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no Attorney-General from either party will barter their integrity, and least of all this Attorney-General, who was a leader of the Bar, on such an important matter for purely party political purposes? Does he recall what the Bar Council of England and Wales said about this matter at the time: that the advice and the working papers should not be published because it would severely undermine legal professional privilege?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that. The Attorney-General is a man who all of us know is of the greatest integrity and also a very good lawyer. He came to his view for sound reasons. It was independent and it was genuinely held. My hon. and learned Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that the requirement to protect the confidentiality of legal advice has been supported not only by successive Governments—I would be astonished if the shadow Attorney-General is now departing from that; if he is, perhaps he or his colleagues should say so—but by the Law Lords in a series of judgments, as well as by working barristers represented by the Bar Council. There is every reason for it, and it is good government that would suffer were we to remove that requirement.

Peter Viggers: After five years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Law Office, I am of course very aware that there is a convention that the Law Officers' advice should never be revealed. However, it is open to the Government to waive that convention if they wish, and the facts in this case are unique. Do the Government realise that if they do not make full disclosure, they will have only themselves to blame if people continue to believe the worst of the Government?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that, and the Butler inquiry set out in some detail the very rare circumstances in which, in the last 100 years, the advice of Attorneys-General has been released. I think that it pointed out that it has happened on only three occasions: two in respect of legal action and one, as it happened, in respect of the Westland affair where the whole of the advice was leaked by a divided Cabinet and it was made public in any case.

Robin Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to agree with me that Elizabeth Wilmshurst was a distinguished legal adviser who did very valuable work in the international criminal court. Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, she was always consistent in her view that invasion of Iraq would require a second resolution? Would he further confirm that the Attorney-General shared that opinion, an opinion that he no doubt held genuinely and independently, from September 2002 until March 2003, when he changed that opinion? May I put it to my right hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member of the House, that perhaps the time has come for him to reflect on whether there is so much in the public domain that it would be better for the Government to let out the whole truth? The Government have published one opinion from the Attorney-General. Surely the less damaging course for the Government now is to publish both opinions and explain exactly what it was that persuaded the Attorney-General to change his opinion in-between.

Jack Straw: On my right hon. Friend's first point, yes I accept, and I always have done—I have made this very clear very publicly—that Elizabeth Wilmshurst was a very fine legal adviser in the Foreign Office, she has acted honourably throughout, and it is certainly the case that her view about the potential legality of any military action without a second resolution after 1441 was well known to me, and I think to others within the Government. But as I have said, that was her view, and I think she accepted—certainly it has to be accepted—that the final arbiter of the Government's legal position is the Attorney-General and not any individual legal adviser, however distinguished.
	On the second point that my right hon. Friend invites me to discuss, what is the case is that before the passage of resolution 1441, there was a widespread view that military action would at the very best be wholly ill-advised without what became the first UN resolution in 2002, and could be unlawful, but that was changed by the passage of resolution 1441. I simply invite my right hon. Friend to refresh his memory about the terms of resolution 1441, which set out clear obligations on Saddam Hussein. Operative paragraph 4 set out the terms of a further material breach; operative paragraphs 11 and 12 set out how any further material breach should be reported and considered by the Security Council; and operative paragraph 13 made it very clear to Saddam Hussein that "serious consequences" would follow in respect of a further material breach.
	It was the judgment of the Attorney-General—and I may say, although I am not the Government legal adviser, it was my judgment based on my intense knowledge of the negotiating history of resolution 1441—that the effect of 1441 was to revive the authority of resolutions 678 and 687 and—[Interruption.] Well, we did not get a second resolution because it was not possible, but it was never needed legally, and I made that very clear to the House—crystal clear, on the record—when I reported the passage of 1441 to the House on 24 November 2002. [Interruption.] As someone behind me says from a sedentary position, the resolution is worthy of re-reading. It sets out clearly the position. The Attorney-General was in no doubt by the middle of March that Saddam, on the basis of evidence that we provided, was in clear further material breach, and that military action was justified.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman, in justifying the legality of war, is resting his case on the three resolutions that he has cited. He has been reminded that the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that the war was unlawful. Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Secretary-General is singularly well placed to advise as to the legal impact of Security Council resolutions? Is not the truth this: the Attorney-General, as a good House lawyer, came to give the best argument that he could in order to provide legal cover for a decision already taken when war was then inevitable and in order to provide the best justification that he could for a war that was being prosecuted for reasons outside those publicly stated by the Prime Minister?

Jack Straw: That allegation is completely untrue. It is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he knows it. I made it clear, and so did the Prime Minister, repeatedly, that we wanted to see the issue of Saddam Hussein's clear breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions resolved peacefully. The phrase that I used repeatedly, in the Security Council and outside, was that we would of course take yes for an answer. Had there been any evidence of compliance with resolution 1441 in those Security Council resolutions, it would not have lain in my mouth to say to my colleagues, without demur from any of them, in the Security Council on 7 March, that not one had claimed that Saddam was in compliance with the Security Council, nor would it have been remotely possible to have come before this House on 17 and 18 March and make the case for military action. The case for military action, I remind the House, was on the basis of a breach of Security Council resolutions rather than on any matter of intelligence. The evidence was put before the House in two successive Command Papers and, I add, the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed that it ascertained a clear and continuing breach by Saddam of those disarmament obligations.

David Winnick: Should we not keep reminding everyone that there was a very large majority in favour of taking military action at the time? Those who voted for such action presumably did so on the basis that it was legal—otherwise they would not have voted accordingly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is pretty grubby to see those who voted for and enthusiastically backed the war now jumping on the anti-war bandwagon? What sort of respect can anyone have for the official Opposition?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend and I commend him and other colleagues on both sides of the House who have been consistent on this matter. If only we had seen similar consistency from the Opposition Front Bench. If I recall correctly, all the Conservative Front Benchers voted in favour of the resolution of 18 March, yet from July last year, we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition trying to have it both ways. In The Sunday Times of 18 July last year, he made two wholly contradictory statements. First, he said:
	"If I knew then what I know now, that would have caused a difficulty. I couldn't have voted for that resolution."
	He then went on to say:
	"I think I would have voted for a differently worded resolution that would have authorised the war",
	adding that he was
	"still in favour of the war".
	Well, it is time for the Opposition to put up or shut up on this matter of the military action.

Adam Price: The Foreign Secretary will know that the Attorney-General has a duty to provide legal advice to Parliament in addition to his duties in relation to the Executive. Was not his written answer of 17 March 2003 effectively the provision of such advice to Parliament? In that case, should not Members of Parliament be entitled to see thebackground papers, setting out the detailed considerations relating to the legal issues on which the Attorney-General's published view was based?

Jack Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the requirement on the Attorney-General to provide legal advice to Parliament is very limited indeed and it is a wholly separate duty from the clear and continuing requirement to provide legal advice to the Government internally. Such advice is very clearly protected by the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege, confirmed by the Law Lords and many other courts. It is protected by the ministerial code. As recently as four years ago, the House had every opportunity during the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill to disagree with that. As I have already said, not a single Member on either side of the House ever proposed that the advice of the Attorney-General should be made public in the way that is now being suggested.

Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to circulate the Attorney-General's background documents to the Cabinet was a failure to comply with the ministerial code? Having asked the Prime Minister for an undertaking relating to factual matters, the Attorney-General clearly changed his mind. Keeping all that secret was done to mislead the Cabinet, and the publication of only partial legal advice from the Attorney-General was done to mislead Parliament. These are terribly serious matters, which can be cleared up only by putting everything openly on the record. Otherwise, the very institution of the Attorney-General as a reliable part of our constitutional arrangements will be brought into doubt.

Jack Straw: I am sorry to say that I do not accept any part of what my right hon. Friend said. There has been not the slightest evidence of providing anything other than the straightforward facts of the matter both to this House and to the other place. There is no secret about the fact that the Attorney-General sought the view of the Prime Minister as to whether Iraq was in further material breach. That was set out clearly in the Butler inquiry's report.
	As to the matter of the ministerial code, that charge, which my right hon. Friend has made in the past, was fully dealt with by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary. Paragraph 23 of the code, which I happen to have in front of me, is much more narrowly drawn than she suggests. The Attorney-General was actually present in the Cabinet—I re-examined the minutes this morning—and offered the clear view that military action in respect of Iraq, as of 17 March, was lawful. I recall that my right hon. Friend was there and voted in favour of military action—and I am glad that she did. The Attorney-General was there to take questions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that it was my question to the Prime Minister on 14 March that gave rise to the subsequent publication of the Attorney-General's opinion in the House of Lords? My question asked about the basis on which it was proposed that we should go to war. More and more facts, and more and more contradictions have emerged. Indeed, I recall that in her resignation speech, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) accused the Prime Minister of misleading both her and Parliament—and she has repeated much the same today.
	Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, under the rules and conventions of the House and under the rules of ministerial conduct, it is the Prime Minister—I see him in his place now—who is responsible for deciding on the disclosure of the Attorney-General's advice and for rectifying any misleading statements that may have been made? I tabled a question to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Will the Foreign Secretary now answer the charge whether the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Jack Straw: With apologies to the hon. Gentleman, his question to the Prime Minister of 14 March 2003 did not immediately come to mind. The House wished to be informed of the Attorney-General's legal advice and that was what happened. My noble Friend the Attorney-General answered a question in the House of Lords, which was repeated in this House, and I published a detailed explanation of the background. There is nothing odd about the view that we took. Anyone who knows the history of what happened in Iraq and of what happened after achieving resolution 1441, knows that the evidence was overwhelming—no one contradicted it at the time—that Saddam was in clear further material breach of his obligations. He was given a final opportunity under the first paragraph of resolution 1441 and he was told specifically what would amount to a "further material breach". There was no requirement whatever in 1441 for a second resolution. I am as comfortable as I was on 18 March in being absolutely clear that the military action that we took was justified—and it remains justified in the light of what we now know.

European Council

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council that took place in Brussels on 22 and 23 March. It was the fifth in a series of summits about the Lisbon agenda on economic reform in Europe.
	It is the British case that economic reform is not going as far or as fast as it must. Nevertheless, over the past five years, 6 million extra jobs have been created in Europe. We have opened up the telecommunications market, and the gas and electricity markets have been liberalised, bringing new choice to consumers. Air travel has also been opened up, bringing cheaper air tickets. In the recent World Economic Forum study of international competitiveness, six EU states were among the 15 most competitive nations in the world. Britain is one of them and has risen a number of places in the last year.
	Some progress has been made, but the truth is that there used to be eight EU countries in the top 15. There are still far too many unemployed people in Europe and too many businesses unable to compete as they should. That provides the EU's challenge.
	The European Council rightly decided yesterday to support the Barroso Commission's emphasis on growth and jobs as the first-order priorities. There was also strong support for the Commission's proposals for improving and simplifying its approach to regulation.
	However, the services directive is at the heart of this next phase of the Lisbon programme. Services account for 70 per cent. of both the UK and EU economies. The directive is intended to liberalise that market. It does this by requiring national Governments to make it easier for European service companies to establish on their territory, so regulatory regimes must be simplified and made accessible. It also facilitates temporary, cross-border trade in services.
	The directive is unquestionably an ambitious measure. Authoritative studies show that it could bring at least 600,000 new jobs to Europe, and add some €37 billion to the European economy. Also, many of the accusations made about it are unfounded or overstated. It does not mean that workers from a low-cost member state can work permanently under their country of origin wages and conditions in another member state. The posted workers directive already prevents that. Neither does it mean that consumer protection and health and safety legislation will be circumvented or abandoned. Again, there are complementary measures that cover those areas.
	It is true that there are some genuine concerns about the implications of the proposals—for example, for us there is their impact on the national health service—that need to be addressed in the negotiations. The directive, inevitably and rightly, will be amended as it goes through its legislative process. The Commission signalled that several weeks ago, and confirmed as much again at the European Council. However, the changes will be part of the normal legislative and negotiating process and, fortunately, the final decision will be by qualified majority voting. None of that has changed as a result of this European Council, whose conclusions were of course subject to the unanimity rule, so any member state had a veto over them.
	However, to have withdrawn the directive, as some wished, would have been a grave injustice and error for Europe's economy. President Barroso is therefore absolutely right to maintain it. The Commission remains committed to the main principles of the directive, as do we and many other EU Governments, notably those from the new member states. Its adoption will be a key test of Europe's seriousness about reform.
	The issue, however, that underlies the debate about the services directive is the future of the European social model. Some, notably France, believe that that model should remain in its existing form. Some, like Britain, believe firmly in Europe's social dimension but wanted it updated to take account of modern economic reality.
	Fortunately, in this debate—which will dominate discussion of Europe's economic future over the coming years, just as the debate over the transatlantic alliance will dominate debate on foreign policy—we have the benefit of some empirical evidence. The UK has shown that it is possible to have flexible labour markets combined with a minimum wage, tax credits to help families into work, family-friendly policies to help the work-life balance, the new deal for the unemployed, record investment in education and skills, and a strong economy. I believe that that is the modern social model for Europe, and that it is recognised as such by many of our partners. The result has been higher growth, higher employment and lower unemployment for the UK. Those successes can be replicated across Europe, with the right policies.
	It is worth adding that the UK has also benefited from its decision, unique amongst the larger member states, to open its labour markets to workers from the new member states. Far from disrupting our labour markets, they have, for the most part, made a positive contribution to the British economy. If we want Europe to compete not just with the USA but with China and India in the future, this type of open and flexible economy is precisely what we need.
	I should report briefly to the House on four other issues covered during this European Council. We endorsed the deal reached in ECOFIN on reform of the stability and growth pact. That introduces a more sophisticated system for implementing the rules, taking account of issues such as the level of debt, investment, and the impact of the economic cycle, all in line with UK objectives, while maintaining financial prudence.
	On climate change, we discussed a long-term strategy for the EU, including progressive targets for reducing emissions. We shall take that process forward in the context of our G8 and EU presidencies later this year.
	On Africa, the European Council noted the Commission for Africa's report and agreed that we had to step up our support for that continent. There is now unanimous support inside Europe for the policies that can confront the challenge—indeed, the scandal—of thousands of African children who die needlessly every day and, where they survive, live lives of unimaginable poverty and deprivation: 2005 must be, and should be, Africa's year.
	On Croatia, we discussed follow-up to the recent decision by European Foreign Ministers to postpone accession negotiations, but to start as soon as there is full co-operation by the Croatian Government with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The British Government, in principle, strongly support Croatian membership of the EU. The next step is likely to be EU discussions with Croatia, led by the present and future presidencies, about how to achieve full co-operation with the tribunal. I should add that we also supported democracy in Lebanon.
	As was obvious from this Council, and from recent NATO-EU summits, there is a big debate going on in Europe today. It is vital to Europe's future, and to the future of Britain. In this debate, we know where we stand: in favour of the transatlantic alliance as the bedrock of our security; in favour of adapting Europe's economy to the future as the path to our prosperity. It is a debate in which we have allies. It is a debate that we can win. But to win we have to participate, fully, wholeheartedly, with self-confidence and belief; we must not marginalise Britain, reducing it to the role of spectator. The policy of this Government is clear: to be at the centre of the debate, not the margins.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Howard: I start by thanking the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome some items in the communiqué, such as the commitment to sustainable development and the Kyoto protocol. However, will the Prime Minister explain why new figures published this week show that carbon dioxide emissions in Britain have risen since 1997?
	The Council rightly emphasised the importance of development issues, but was there not a grievous failure to match words with deeds when it came to helping the world's poor and depressed? Should not the EU demonstrate its belief in the right values with its trade policy? Is not free and fair trade the best way to lift people out of poverty? Would not dropping EU tariffs on their goods be the ideal way to help people in those countries devastated by the tsunami? Is not it indefensible and immoral to impose punitive duties on struggling nations and suffering people? Is not it also imprudent, as well as unethical, to press ahead with plans to sell arms to China? Does the Prime Minister think that it was right for Javier Solana to say yesterday that the EU was moving towards a "political decision" to end the arms embargo? Should not the Prime Minister instead listen to the human rights groups, Britain's Defence Manufacturers Association, the four Select Committees that have studied this matter, and our allies in Japan and the US, all of whom are urging him to maintain the embargo?
	If the Council is serious about human rights, can I ask the Prime Minister whether the situation in Darfur was discussed? He just said that 2005 must be Africa's year, but the tragedy in Sudan is getting daily more horrific. The UN now says that 180,000 people have died. Why is not the Prime Minister demanding a UN resolution that would impose arms and oil sanctions on the Sudanese Government, and give the African Union peacekeepers the mandate and support that they need to protect the civilian population?
	This summit came at an appropriate time, being the last one before the election—if we are to believe what we are told, not least by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. It discussed a wide range of issues, and it encapsulated the Prime Minister's complete failure on Europe over the past eight years.
	Why on earth is the British rebate being discussed? The justification for it is as strong now as it was when it was won. The EU's financial problems are not caused by the rebate but by policies such as the common agricultural policy that are in real need of further reform. So why is not the reform agenda being given pride of place?
	The Prime Minister assures us that he will not give way on the rebate. He says that his mind is made up. However, as we have discovered again this morning, members of this Government have a curious tendency to change their minds, and their advice, when they come under pressure.
	And it is not just Ministers who cave in at the last moment. The Prime Minister himself changed his position when he came under pressure at the Council. Before he went abroad, his Government were all in favour of the services directive. Only last month the Foreign Secretary said:
	"Creating a true single market in"
	services
	"would boost growth in the EU and improve the price, choice and quality of services on offer to businesses and consumers."
	But when it came to standing up for the services directive against President Chirac's objections, the Prime Minister surrendered. He put the interests of the French President before those of British workers and consumers, so how can we trust his promises on the rebate? Last time the Prime Minister fell out with President Chirac, he gave him a fountain pen. Next time, if he is still there, will he give him the cheque book?
	In 2000, the Prime Minister said that there had been a sea change in European thinking away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition. The last President of the Commission, Mr. Prodi, described the agenda as a big failure and the current President said that the Lisbon goals were too ambitious. Is not the European Union doing what the Prime Minister does when he fails all his targets—abandoning them and calling it a relaunch? Is not that failure a tragedy for Europe's 19 million unemployed? Does not it show that making promises is not enough and that Governments that are not prepared to turn talk into action never achieve anything?
	The Council discussed reform of the euro stability and growth pact which Europe says is needed because a European Union of 25 countries is characterised by considerable diversity. Does not that diversity mean that a one-size-fits-all interest rate does not work? Is not that precisely why membership of the single currency would harm jobs and prosperity in Britain?
	The Prime Minister boasted that Britain's place in the recent World Economic Forum's study of international competitiveness has improved during the past year. What he did not say is that today we are 11th in that league, but in 1998 we were fourth. Does not that say all we need to know about the economic performance and record of this Government?
	Does not the Prime Minister believe that a European Union of 25 countries, characterised by considerable diversity, should be reforming and modernising in other ways also? Is not that his biggest failure of all? Why is not he putting the case for a more diverse and flexible Europe, for a live-and-let-live Europe of co-operating nation states? Why is not he putting the case for powers to be returned to the nation states, such as those we now discover he surrendered on asylum? Even the Dutch Government are asking for powers to be returned on social policy. Was not Germany's Europe Minister right when he recently described the constitution as
	"the birth certificate of the United States of Europe"?
	Is not that precisely the wrong direction for a modern Europe, characterised by considerable diversity, to take? Was not the Prime Minister's former economic adviser right when he said that the constitution will
	"entrench Europe's failings and drag Britain down too."
	Will not there be a clear choice at the next election between a Labour Government handing over ever more power to Brussels and a Conservative Government who will bring powers back to member states and closer to the people, and work for a flexible and diverse Europe fit for the 21st century? Is not there now a unique opportunity to settle Britain's relationship with Europe in Britain's national interest? Is not it time for an end to the Government's failures on Europe?

Tony Blair: There certainly is a clear choice, not least on the economy, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. I seem to remember that when he was a Minister in the last Conservative Government unemployment rose to 3 million, interest rates were at 10 per cent. for four years and there were two recessions during which people lost their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. Yes, there is a clear choice between the right hon. and learned Gentleman's boom and bust and cuts in investment and our economic stability and investment in public services.
	I shall deal with one or two of the specific issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. On climate change, it is absolutely important to meet our Kyoto targets and we will. It is correct that there has been a rise in CO 2 emissions and one way of dealing with that is the climate change levy, which his party voted against. Carbon dioxide emissions have risen because of the strength of the economy but, overall, we shall meet our Kyoto targets in a way that will probably single us out from most other countries in the world.
	On the European Union and the China arms embargo, it is important in any discussion of the matter to recognise that that cannot be done without a proper code of conduct to govern any arms sales to China. It is a sensitive issue because of recent events and the European Union has made it clear that there cannot be a qualitative or quantitative increase in arms sales.
	On Sudan, we are pressing for UN Security Council measures. The main thing is to ensure that the African Union mission of peacekeepers is built up to its full strength. We can introduce arms sanctions against Sudan, but the only thing that will work is to have a proper peacekeeping force there which is properly able to enforce, as well as to keep peace. Until we do that, we will not bring any hope to that troubled part of Sudan. That is also one of the important aspects of the Commission for Africa. Africa needs its own proper peacekeeping and peace-enforcing contingent, which must be of sufficient strength that it can be sent to different parts of Africa and keep warring people apart so that conflicts can be resolved and peace kept. Until that happens, situations such as that in Sudan will continue.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a failure of our policy over the past eight years. I remind him that when we came to office we were still living with the aftermath of the beef war, which probably stands out as the epitome of a failed European policy. All he ever did in Europe, and the only position he ever adopted that anyone remembers, was to stand out against the European social chapter, and against paid holidays and decent terms and conditions for British workers—[Interruption.] He may say that people can decide for themselves, but in 18 years of government he never quite got round to doing it, did he?
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised other points, including the rebate which, incidentally, was not mentioned at the Council, at the dinner or during the conclusions the following day. It was mentioned by the French President, as it always is, but he always gets the same response from me: no. That will continue to happen.
	On the reform agenda, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman listened to what I said. I am passionately in favour of the services directive and we must ensure that it is implemented. We have given nothing away. On the contrary, it will be debated through the legislative process. I agree that there is a big issue with the directive and the reform agenda and that there is a battle going on. There is also a battle over trade policy. What is the right thing to do? It is to get in there and ensure that we win the debates. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alternative? It is to embark on a policy of renegotiating the fundamental existing terms of Britain's membership of the European Union. What will that do? I do not often agree with the spokesman of the UK Independence party but I agreed with him when he said:
	"The whole policy of renegotiation is, as far as the Tories are concerned, nothing more than self-delusion—and on the British public it's just a deception".
	Dominic Cummings, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former director of strategy, said a few months ago:
	"the party"—
	the Conservative party—
	"is stuck on the question: 'what would you do if you can't get the new deal you want?  . . . The current situation of spasmodic lurches without a clear view  . . . is the worst of all worlds. It does not deal with UKIP, it does not change opinion, it does not improve the Conservative Party's reputation for seriousness."
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he will withdraw from the common agricultural policy, the social chapter, overseas aid, fisheries—

Michael Howard: indicated dissent.

Tony Blair: It is in black and white. Let me tell him what his fisheries spokesman said on Monday. The Conservative party's shadow Minster for Europe, when asked what he would do about the control of fisheries, said, "Let's look at what Iceland has done," and, further afield, "Let's look at what happens in the Falkland Islands."

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I gently say that we are discussing a statement, not the Conservative party's policies?

Tony Blair: We are also dealing with choice and the choice is between being at the heart of Europe or on the margins. The idea that we could have the same fisheries policy as the Falklands Islands is an indication only of how utterly unserious the Conservative party is.
	The truth of the matter is that there is a very clear choice, between going into the debates on economic reform and trade and fighting Britain's corner, or opting out, as the last Conservative Government did, leaving Britain defenceless and near the exit door. That would betray our true national interest. It is a strategy born of opportunism, it will fail, and the more it comes under scrutiny, so will the right hon. and learned Gentleman's leadership.

Charles Kennedy: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the summit. On the issue of the liberalisation of the services market and the services directive, which is important because of its 70 per cent. contribution to European gross domestic product—so reform is clearly in Britain's interests—will the Prime Minister confirm that further steps towards liberalisation would increase standards, lower costs and help generate jobs? He said:
	"The directive, inevitably and rightly, will be amended as it goes through its legislative process."
	Why would it be right to envisage a watering down of the services directive, since that would reduce the benefits of liberalisation? He must find it a little embarrassing in the historical context that Mrs. Thatcher was much firmer in pushing through the liberalisation of the single market than he has been on this issue. Will he be emboldened in his future endeavours?
	On the UK rebate, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that that will always come back to the argument that France would have to accept fundamental reform of the CAP before it could make progress by being critical and carping about the UK rebate? Given the domestic referendum concerns of the President of France, which we all recognise, does the Prime Minister hold out much prospect of being able to be a little more persuasive with him than was obviously the case in the past two or three days?
	The Prime Minister did not mention the ongoing troop commitment in Iraq in his statement, but it is unlikely that some discussion of it did not take place, certainly at the margins, with some of his opposite numbers in the EU. Given that several of the allies have either withdrawn their troops or have indicated a willingness or a timetable to withdraw them, did he discuss those matters with any of his counterparts at the summit? In that context, will he take account of yesterday's all-party Defence Committee report, which acknowledges an ongoing British presence in Iraq, perhaps even at present levels, into the next calendar year? Will not withdrawal of further European Union countries maintain that position or indeed require our troop numbers to be increased? Did he discuss those matters with any of his opposite numbers?

Tony Blair: In relation to the services directive, of course we support it. The only issue for the European Council, which is a discussion that produces conclusions, was whether we should withdraw the directive. That was firmly rejected by the majority of countries round the table. There will be a legislative process in any event, but the Council agreed that any changes have to be made in the course of that process. There will be some amendments, but they should not touch on the essential nature of the directive, which is right and necessary and will bring benefits.
	In relation to CAP reform and the services directive, the point to emphasise is the importance of qualified majority voting. There is no way we would get any of the changes—on the CAP, on the services directive or on the single market—without QMV.
	In respect of Iraq, I would point out that other countries—most notably, recently, Australia—have decided to put in troops. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the position of myself and other European Union leaders, except those with parliamentary resolutions to which they have to adhere—although they remain fully supportive of the mission in Iraq—is that we stay in Iraq until the job is done. The job is being done. Iraq is on its way to democracy, there is a huge spirit of enthusiasm there for the future, and the security problems are increasingly being dealt with by the Iraqis themselves. However, we must ensure that the security forces are in the proper position to be able to guard the Iraqis against the terrorist threat that they face. We must also ensure that Iraq can continue to make steady progress towards democracy. That is our position and, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, it is the position of the other European countries.

Keith Vaz: Recognising that the process of enlargement may have had an effect on progress on the Lisbon agenda, the Kok report is clear that Britain has done better than its EU partners in meeting the Lisbon benchmarks. My right hon. Friend will know that this spring marks the third anniversary of the initiative that he started with Chancellor Schröder on the wider reform of the EU. Will he confirm that substantial progress has been made since his letter of 25 February 2002, and that the wider reform agenda will be a theme of the presidency?

Tony Blair: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. There is no doubt that the direction of travel for Europe now is towards reform. There are countries that will act as a brake on that, and that is why it is important that we argue the case and try to ensure that people understand that in the world of globalisation we protect jobs through investment in skills and education and active labour market measures, rather than regulation or protection.

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to take the Prime Minister back to China. It has a terrible record, condemned by almost everybody, on democracy and human rights. Massive abuses take place every day. We also know that it has been hugely involved in the chain of proliferation of technology to North Korea. The Prime Minister knows that the present Government have a strong position on North Korea and are determined that it should rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, but China is behind much of their development. In the past two weeks, China has threatened Taiwan, overtly threatening to invade it if it takes decisions that China disagrees with. Why are the Government not at the very forefront of saying that we should not sell arms to China until major change has come about? We should lead on that and refuse to follow the others in Europe down a ridiculous road that will damage everybody.

Tony Blair: It is important to emphasise that the idea in the abstract of lifting the China arms embargo has never been separate from the notion that it should be replaced with a strong code of conduct that should provide for a far more rational method of determining sales to China. I do not put the human rights considerations to the side: on the contrary, I think that they are very important. I would simply underline the fact that the debate in Europe has taken a different turn over the past few weeks. We are in the thick of that debate, trying to ensure that whatever Europe does, it does it with real sensitivity to the values in which we and our American allies believe, and that we introduce a system that is rational in the light of what is happening in China today.

Mike Gapes: On China, may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the Quadripartite Committee's report, published today, in which four Select Committees express strong reservations about any premature lifting of the arms embargo? Was there any discussion in the margins of the meeting? Will my right hon. Friend be reinforced in his view by the unanimous view of all the members of those four Committees, based on our experience of talking to members of the US Congress and other discussions about the damaging impact on British companies of a premature lifting of the embargo?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly pay careful attention to what he and his colleagues said. It was not raised either at the summit or at the margins—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] That is of significance in itself, because there may have been countries that wanted to raise the idea of lifting the embargo at present, but they did not do so. I think that has some significance.

John Greenway: Many British businesses are well placed to take advantage of the services directive, as and when we get it. Can the Prime Minister give an indication of the timetable that he envisages for the adoption of the directive? Does he really think that it will go through under QMV if the French are against it?

Tony Blair: In exactly the same way, there was a lot of opposition to reform of the common agricultural policy. The reform has not been as great as we wanted, but the position is different from what it was a few years ago. Yes, I believe that the services directive will go through, but there will be a battle over it. My point to the Conservative party is not that there will not be a battle—there will—but that we must consider what is the best way to win it. My point is that the biggest change that has happened in Europe—I do not think people fully understand it yet—has been the accession of the new member states, which are our allies on both the transatlantic alliance and economic reform. That is why it would be so crazy to marginalise ourselves in Europe. With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, at the very moment when we are fighting those battles for the transatlantic alliance and economic reform, to start adebate about the renegotiation of Britain's membership—I cannot think of a crazier or more misjudged policy.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons why Chirac has turned a bit nasty lately is that the French will soon be having a poll on the constitution and it looks as though he might finish up with a headache? In the Prime Minister's quieter moments, does he think that it might not be a bad idea if that happened? It would save us a lot of embarrassment here.
	Finally, after eight years of a Labour Government, may I congratulate them on running such a successful economy—unemployment down, employment up and everything else—without joining the euro?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations on our economic management. He asks about my quieter moments. I have to say that I have not yet had any.

Tony Baldry: On Darfur, the Prime Minister will be aware that the African Union forces in Sudan at present have only a limited monitoring role. Is the House to understand from his earlier comments that the UK and the Security Council will support both a peacekeeping and a peace-enforcing mandate for the African Union? If so, will there also be funds to assist that objective?

Tony Blair: We have to try to negotiate that in the Security Council, which is what we are doing at present. I return to the point that I made earlier—because I have looked at the situation in Sudan very carefully—as I did, too, when I visited the country. The Security Council and the resolution we have managed to pass there will be extremely important, but the only thing that will stop what is happening in Sudan is the presence of a sufficient number of well-armed people able to keep the combatants apart and—[Interruption.] Of course their mandate is important. That is why we must secure the right mandate, and we are working to do that, but in the end the most important thing is to ensure that that force goes to Sudan, and we and other countries have already said that we are prepared to help with funding that.

Andrew Miller: Were there any discussions at the margins about collaborative education projects? My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that there is real excitement at the Whitby high school in my constituency, where we are putting together such a project to form links, through the highest available technology, with a school in Budapest. The teachers are buzzing with excitement. We can do extremely well in that field, because of the importance of the English language to the rest of Europe.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. I know of many such joint partnerships and ventures. They work extremely well, and it is certainly our intention to encourage them.

Richard Allan: The Prime Minister rightly referred to the importance of telecommunications market liberalisation in the Lisbon agenda on competitiveness. Does he agree that although the UK market has been opened up effectively with the Communications Act 2003 and the creation of Ofcom, much more progress remains to be made in other EU countries, to the potential disadvantage of British businesses that want to invest in the European market? Will he ensure that telecoms liberalisation is given significant priority in the UK agenda for the EU presidency?

Tony Blair: We will certainly do that.

Wayne David: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement. Was there any reference at the Council, either formally or informally, to the idea that Britain should have an associate relationship with the European Union? Does he agree that if we were to have such a relationship it would beextremely detrimental to the interests of this country?

Tony Blair: It certainly would be, which is why under this Government it will not happen. The result would be that, on trade policy, the services directive and the whole reform agenda, Europe would be without the strong voice of Britain, and Britain would be marginalised in Europe.

John Randall: Was there any discussion of what is to be done about Kosovo, and if not, why not?

Tony Blair: It was discussed in the Foreign Ministers meeting, as I have just been quickly and reliably informed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is deep and growing alarm at the march of neo-liberalism in the European Union? Working people and trade unionists are beginning to wake up to the threat to the welfare state and the worker protection they have enjoyed in the post-war world. That is the underlying cause of the Swedish no in their referendum on the euro, and the probable no vote in France on the constitutional treaty. What happens when the constitutional treaty is rejected? Will we have a fundamental rethink about the economic direction of Europe?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that the European economy can be described as marching towards neo-liberalism. It is important to open up the economy. There used to be a view on the right, held by the previous Government—indeed the Leader of the Opposition pioneered the idea—that somehow one had to choose between good, decent terms and conditions for the work force and economic efficiency. That is why the Conservatives opposed the minimum wage and the social chapter. In this country, we have shown that we can combine a minimum wage, the social chapter, help for people to get off benefit and into work and the work-life balance—measures that help people to combine their family life with work—and still have a successful economy. In today's world, it is a deception on our work force and our people to believe that we can isolate ourselves from the emerging economies in Asia—the Chinese economy and the Indian economy—when in fact we have to compete with them. The way to compete is to go higher and higher up the value-added chain, which is why it is so important to invest in skills, technology and education, but to combine that with a flexible and open economy. That is what we have to do. When we consider the difference between this country's economic performance and that of some comparable countries in Europe, I think we are doing extremely well.

Robert Walter: The Prime Minister referred to the relaxation of the growth and stability pact. When he agreed to that at the European Council meeting, had he taken the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England? When the Governor appeared before the Treasury Committee this morning, he was critical of that decision and said that if you want monetary stability you have to have a set of rules and stick to them.

Tony Blair: Of course you have to have a set of rules, but you also have to have the right set of rules. We want to see changes in the growth and stability pact as it is now—as it is amended. We made a series of propositions for something much more akin to the British system, which works well for us. Obviously, that has to be agreed among all the European countries, but the greater flexibility in the growth and stability pact that was agreed makes sense.

Teddy Taylor: Did the discussions on the serious and worsening unemployment situation in Germany and France and artificial prosperity in Ireland persuade the Prime Minister that the single currency was not the best idea for Europe or for Britain? Will he condemn or at least deny the appalling story on the front page of The Sunday Telegraph last week that, in the unlikely event of the Government winning the election, he would be getting rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer solely because of his lack of enthusiasm for the single currency?

Tony Blair: On the euro, we have the best position, which is to have the five economic conditions that have to be met if it is right for Britain to join, but to keep the option open. The Conservative position is to close off the option. There is absolutely no sense in that whatever. Keep the option open. We can exercise it if we want it, but we do not have to exercise it if we do not want it. In the meantime, we can ensure that we keep the economic conditions intact. That position has served us well both in Britain and in Europe and we should maintain it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given the Prime Minister's belief in Africa and his special efforts in that respect, does he agree that the mass killings in Darfur have gone on for far too long? What discussions did he have at the European Council about sending forces rapidly to deal with the situation? Or is the problem that the French are preventing NATO from going into Africa, because they think it should be a European army? When will the west take action on Darfur?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman's obsession with Europe has led him into a rather odd deviation from reality. No, the issue is not whether NATO or Europe sends in forces. We cannot send forces into Darfur. That would not be supported by the surrounding African countries, and it would not be practical. The main thing is to support the African Union in doing that. That is the only way that we will bring some semblance of peace to Darfur, and it is not NATO that will be able to do so, any more than Europe.

Mark Prisk: Last week, the Chancellor told us that more than 50 per cent. of regulations come from the Commission, yet the Minister for Europe now tells us that that is a myth and the figure is just 9 per cent. Who is right?

Tony Blair: There are regulations that come from Europe, and a large part of the regulations—

Mark Prisk: What percentage?

Tony Blair: I am not going to get into percentages, but large amounts of regulation come from Europe. It is important, however, that we do not gold-plate those regulations. That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was talking about when he made it clear that we should not gold-plate the regulations that come from Europe. But surely the most important thing is, again, that if regulations are coming from Europe, we should be part of that debate; we should not be opted out of it. That is why the position adopted by the Conservative party is so foolish.

John Bercow: When not discussing the crucial issue of economic reform, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity in the margins of the European Council to complain to President Chirac that Total Oil's $400 million investment in Burma is propping up the brutal military dictatorship there? Is it not now high time that the European Union resolved that its common position towards oppressive regimes should be driven by respect for human rights and democratic values, not by the pursuit of filthy lucre and narrow, short-term self-interest?

Tony Blair: That is not something that I raised with President Chirac. We had other discussions, which we are continuing. However, the basic point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England this morning, and given that it is in no one's interest that the euro should be anything other than a hard currency, does the Prime Minister accept that the appearance of altering the stability pact for political rather than economic reasons undermines confidence in financial markets, and indeed much more widely? Can he give us any comfort following the meeting that the pact will not be further watered down when the more dominant nations in the EU feel constrained by it?

Tony Blair: The most important thing in my view is to have a stability and growth pact that is actually based on a rational set of rules, and we have proposed changes—we have done so for a long period—to the pact that will allow us to take account, for example, of the need to borrow for investment over the cycle. We think that that is a more rational approach to deficits. We are also pushing for economic reform in Europe. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, yes, debates are going about these things the whole time, but the important thing is to be there and be part of them, and to ensure that we are not excluded from them and marginalised. I am sure that he would agree with that, which is why he should perhaps re-educate some of his Front-Bench colleagues.

William Cash: Does the Prime Minister accept that, in going along with the torpedo that President Chirac has fired at the services directive, he, by caving in, has also fired a torpedo at his own constitution, title III of which clearly reinforces the whole notion of the freedom of services? Does he not accept that, in seeking to renegotiate the stability and growth pact when there is no stability, no growth and no pact, he is in fact engaged in renegotiation? What will he do if there is a no vote in the referendum on renegotiation?

Tony Blair: I am trying to unbundle that one. Should I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that he thought the constitution gave a big push towards the services directive?

William Cash: Absolutely.

Tony Blair: Okay. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the services directive. The European constitution gives a push for the services directive. Is that not a good argument for the constitution? Have we got a bit of a mind change going on here?

William Cash: No.

Tony Blair: Possibly not. The issue at the summit was whether the services directive should be withdrawn, and it was decided that it should not be. There will be a process of amendment through the legislative process in the European Parliament. That will happen in any event, and in a sense the debate was neither advanced nor closed off at the European Council—it was merely transferred, obviously, to the European Parliament. The crucial thing was to prevent any suggestion that the services directive in its entirety should be withdrawn, because that would be disastrous. There will be a battle over it. That is the situation. We must ensure that the services directive survives and goes through, and that is what we will do.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: The business for the week after the Easter recess will be:
	Monday 4 April—Second Reading of the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Tuesday 5 April—Second Reading of the Equality Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Mental Capacity Bill.
	Wednesday 6 April—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government's failure to control immigration" followed by a debate entitled "Government's failure to tackle crime", both of which arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 7 April—A debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 8 April—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 11 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	I should like to inform the House that business in Westminster Hall for April will be:
	Thursday 7 April—A debate on the national service framework for coronary heart disease.
	Thursday 14 April—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on social housing provision in Northern Ireland.
	Thursday 21 April—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the Department for International Development's agriculture policy.
	I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, right hon. and hon. Members, staff of the House and parliamentary clerks in Whitehall a happy Easter.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for telling us the business. May I thank the staff of the House for all that they do for us and join him in wishing them, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and hon. Members on both sides of the House a happy Easter?
	Will the Leader of the House arrange for three statements to be made in the week after we return? First, will he arrange for Health Ministers to respond to the many letters and approaches that have been made to them—so far without success—on behalf of multiple sclerosis therapy centres about the charges of more than £1,000 that they are forced to pay for inspections by the Healthcare Commission, which are about to rise by 50 per cent. and will quadruple by 2008? Those centres are paid for entirely by donations and are the only such voluntary arrangements to be charged for in that way. A campaigner said to me yesterday, "I don't call it a stealth tax—it's daylight robbery." May we have a statement about that?
	Secondly, the Leader of the House will recall that, on three occasions in June last year, I raised with him the problems associated with postal voting. I cited examples of babies receiving ballot papers, heads of families filling in ballot papers for the whole family, employers threatening to sack staff unless they voted for a certain political party and other worrying abuses. I quoted the Labour leader of Birmingham city council, Sir Albert Bore, calling for a "national rethink". Conservatives and the Electoral Commission have called for individual voter registration to be introduced on the mainland as it applies in Northern Ireland. We have gone further and called for Government inspectors for the coming elections in areas where abuses have been alleged. What has the Leader of the House done about that in the past nine months? May we have a statement in the light of the comments of the judge in the Birmingham postal ballots case that the system is an "open invitation to fraud" and today's Select Committee report? If not, are the Government really satisfied about this country sliding back to the worst days of personation and electoral fraud such as were seen in the 18th century?
	Thirdly and finally, the Modernisation Committee has now recommended that the European Scrutiny Committee should sit in public when deliberating European documents. I have been asking the Leader of the House for more than a year to make the necessary changes to Standing Orders. What action does he intend to take—or will it be left to me to make the change after our general election victory?

Peter Hain: Dream on.
	I shall certainly look into the issue of multiple sclerosis therapy centres, and the Secretary of State for Health will want to pay attention to what the hon. Gentleman says.
	On postal voting, the simple fact is that we did not have a pilot in the west midlands, which is where the case of serious fraud arose—I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that. The allegations there relate to the traditional method of postal voting, not an all-postal pilot. The Electoral Commission said in its evaluation of   the June 2004 elections that postal voting should remain part of the electoral process. We accept its recommendations on strengthening the penalties for malpractice involving postal voting generally—for example, by establishing new offences involving electoral fraud and personation.
	The truth is that postal voting is now increasingly popular among many honest and upright citizens throughout Britain, because they find it an easier way to vote, so more are taking advantage of it. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a return to 18th-century fraud is pre-election hype and exaggeration, and I am sorry that he has resorted to it.
	We are examining individual voter registration, but it is quite a complex matter. We must consider the situation in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that more voters are not discouraged from registering to vote, because there is evidence that the number of voters on the electoral register is declining. We should be careful not to introduce a system that is so complex that it effectively discourages higher turnout.
	We will look at the recommendation to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to deliberate in public when the opportunity arises, and there is a chance to debate the Modernisation Committee's conclusions.

Dave Watts: After raising the issue of school meals during business questions last week, I was delighted that the Government made a statement that they would do something about it. I was impressed by the wide-ranging measures that they announced. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also obvious that many of our children lack the skills to prepare meals themselves, and there is a lack of information given out in schools about the contents of food? Should we not address the matter through the national curriculum, and will he raise the idea on my behalf with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills?

Peter Hain: I know that the Minister concerned will want to study my hon. Friend's points closely, and I agree with the spirit of them. I strongly believe that the nutritional value of school meals should be much higher. The kind of food that many children eat is worrying. As independent studies have confirmed, that will ultimately result in serious threats to their future health, which is why we have already announced massive additional investment, tougher standards for processed food, a new role for Ofsted to inspect and report on healthy eating, and investment to rebuild and refurbish primary school kitchens. As the Government have said, we welcome the way in which Jamie Oliver has driven this subject up the agenda and made it a big public issue, as Government Ministers could not have hoped to do. That will move the whole agenda forward.

Angela Browning: The Leader of the House said that the Mental Capacity Bill would return for its remaining stages a week on Tuesday. May we have sufficient time to consider that Bill, because he will know that the Government tabled important amendments in the other place, especially one relating to the Bournewood judgment—an important European Court judgment? I tabled amendments to close the Bournewood gap in Committee, and we will need time for a proper debate on the Government amendments.
	Additionally, the Leader of the House will recall that on Report and Third Reading in this Chamber, there was considerable confusion and anxiety about the interpretation of the Bill in respect of euthanasia. The Minister concerned was incapable of answering straight questions on the Floor of the House. Will we have sufficient time to address that important aspect of the Bill? Many people want the Bill, including myself, but while the caveat that it may represent euthanasia by the back door hangs over it, it will continue to cause great concern outside this place.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady makes several important points that will be borne in mind, but I must ask her to withdraw the accusation that the Bill represents euthanasia by the back door, because that is simply not the case. She knows that the Bill was subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny—

Angela Browning: I was on the Joint Committee.

Peter Hain: Indeed, and she performed a valuable role.

John Bercow: So was I.

Peter Hain: Are any other hon. Members queueing up to admit to their positive role? [Interruption.] Ah, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was not on the Joint Committee. The issues are difficult, but the Bill is important, as the hon. Lady says. We want to get it through as quickly and consensually as possible.

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that when we return after the Easter recess, the Prime Minister himself will make an oral statement, and respond to questions from hon. Members, to substantiate the Government's response to the recommendations of the Butler inquiry? All hon. Members will be staggered by the mind-boggling cheek of producing such a short written statement on the response to such an incredibly important report yesterday—the day before the House rises for the recess. There has been media questioning, but Members of the House have had no opportunity to question the Government on important matters, including the machinery of government. What could be more important in a parliamentary democracy than the accountability of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to Parliament?
	The Butler report found sloppy decision making and inadequate lines of responsibility. It was a devastating attack on so-called "sofa politics". It defined precisely the corrosive tendencies to which that has led and highlighted yet another reason why the public are disillusioned with, and disengaged from, the political process. I shall quote a specific conclusion from the report:
	"we are concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures which we saw in the context of policy-making towards Iraq risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement. Such risks are particularly significant in a field like the subject of our Review, where hard facts are inherently difficult to come by and the quality of judgement is accordingly all the more important."
	Last night's statement was a totally inadequate reply to that conclusion, and the apposite and well-informed criticisms made about the way in which Ministers used their judgment on intelligence issues. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were in the Chamber today. Were they too scared to answer questions from parliamentarians about such vital issues at the very heart of our political system?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were here this afternoon to answer questions from both sides of the House. I simply do not accept the picture that he paints. A full statement was provided to the House in the proper way in response to the report, and its lessons will be learned. I do not understand why he has got into such a fuss about it.

Stephen McCabe: Can we have an early debate on adult numeracy and literacy standards, so that I might feel better equipped to explain to my constituents in Hall Green the ITN Osborneism that a £35 billion reduction in planned spending is actually an increase, rather than a cut?

Peter Hain: I have to agree with my hon. Friend. It is pretty obvious that if you take 35 away from some number, you have less, do you not, Madam Deputy Speaker? If one has a number minus 35, one ends up with a lower figure—that is the point. I would have thought that even a primary school child taking the most basic maths class would understand that any number minus 35 is 35 less—so in other words, £35 billion of cuts are being suggested.

Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House was present when the Foreign Secretary answered a question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). He said to her that there had been opportunities to ask questions on the statement made by the Attorney-General, but as she sat down, she said that that did not happen, and that there was no opportunity to ask questions in Cabinet. The Leader of the House was present during that Cabinet meeting—so who was telling the truth and who was telling the lie?

Peter Hain: I was indeed there, and there was no question of lies or the rest of it. Frankly, between "he said" and "she said" we might as well leave it at that.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I take the Leader of the House back two weeks? On 3 March, I asked him, as is recorded in column 1110 of Hansard, if we could have a debate on the monarchy, and he replied that he had "absolutely no intention" of having such a debate. He went on to say that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had made a statement in which he explained the position on the royal wedding in two weeks' time. Can I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that it has since become quite clear that Clarence House did not understand the Government's position. Indeed, the spin doctors at Clarence House are, wrongly, blaming the Government for giving the wrong impression. We know from the reply to a parliamentary question this week that when Charles becomes king Camilla will become queen. As a consequence, in two weeks' time, when Camilla marries the Prince of Wales she will become the Princess of Wales. There is a genuine need for a statement. On 9 December 1992, John Major made a statement to the House at the time of the separation of Diana and Charles, and in December 1936, Stanley Baldwin—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I have great admiration and considerable affection for my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise him a statement on that matter.

John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House replace the debate on defence in the UK with a debate on the Floor of the House on the important subject of international development? I put it to him that the Government's tendency, whenever they have nothing better to table, simply to lob on to the agenda an Adjournment debate on Wales, the European Union, defence in the UK or defence in the world, is unsatisfactory. There are huge issues in the international development debate, including effective aid, good debt relief, the pursuit of trade justice and the fight for improved governance in Africa, and there is a compelling argument to debate those matters on the Floor of the House.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman may have a point about defence. We are obliged by convention and tradition to hold five debates on various aspects of defence policy. If the Conservative Front-Bench team is making representations to me that that should be handled differently—

John Bercow: No, I am making the representations.

Peter Hain: I have noticed that. If the Conservative Front-Bench team were to support the hon. Gentleman in that endeavour, that would be very interesting, and I would consider any such representations very sympathetically.

Mark Tami: I understand that the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, which provides our computer equipment, is going to put out to tender the contract to provide hand-held devices for Members. Can the Leader of the House tell us what consultation has been conducted among Members? I am quite unaware of any.

Peter Hain: I certainly have not been consulted on this matter, and although I have been advised that there have been some discussions, I am not satisfied that proper consultation has taken place. I hope that the House authorities will look at the matter carefully and consult in more depth to ensure that any decision will be made in the full knowledge of Members, and in the best interests of the House.

Richard Allan: Many loyal and hard-working public servants in my constituency have written to me to express concern about possible changes to their pension schemes. They would expect a change of that nature that affects a large number of people and has significant impact on morale in the public services to be at the heart of the parliamentary agenda. However, if such matters are debated at all, it is done through statutory instruments. Can the Leader of the House ensure that when proposals are introduced to change public sector pension schemes they are given the due prominence in the business of the House that people would expect?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He will welcome the statement following the discussions between the Deputy Prime Minister and the local government unions that resulted in consensus on the way forward. Everyone accepts that the existing method for funding public pensions, particularly an unfunded scheme such as the local government one, is not sustainable and that we must find a way forward in the new circumstances created by an ageing society. If there is an opportunity for the House discuss these matters, we will obviously seek to use it.

Alan Hurst: My right hon. Friend will be aware of widespread concern about the draft guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on drugs to treat Alzheimer's and related diseases. Sufferers and their families believe that medical advances can alleviate these heart-rending conditions and give people hope. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate before a final decision is made?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. I cannot promise him an early debate, so he may wish to take advantage of the normal opportunities to try to secure one himself.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on today's controversial report by the Science and Technology Committee on human reproductive technology and the law, to ensure that the House makes it clear that it rejects the extreme libertarian and deregulatory thrust of that report in favour of a precautionary, gradualist approach that respects the dignity of all human life?

Peter Hain: I realise that there was controversy surrounding the report, which raises crucial and sensitive issues—which is why the Government will study it very closely indeed.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the joint report on electoral registration published today by the Select Committees on Constitutional Affairs and on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? I doubt whether it would be fruitful to have a debate about electoral registration before 11 April—I noticed that my right hon. Friend did not mention 12 April or any subsequent dates when he announced the business—but after a general election, will he bear in mind the need to debate the matter fully, as both the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister need to respond? As I will not be here to contribute, could special attention be given to the evidence that I produced for the Committees? It was almost entirely ignored, but it was clearly the most incisive stuff presented to them.

Peter Hain: It is outrageous that my hon. Friend's points should have been ignored. He has raised an important issue which, as I said earlier, Ministers are looking into. Extra business has not been announced for the week after Monday 11 April because it is normal practice, when there is a recess, simply to announce business for one full week and for the following Monday on a provisional basis.

Andrew Miller: Further to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), in the nine years in which I served on the Information Committee, all key changes to the provision of services for Members and the development of the network in the House became subjects for our reports, which were laid before the House. Has there been a change in that practice, and if not, can we insist that PCD does not go ahead with any procurement until such a report has been laid before the House?

Peter Hain: I have received conflicting advice and information on the subject. I am advised that the issue has been discussed by the Information Committee and by the Speaker's advisory panel. On the other hand, it is clear from my hon. Friends' questions that there is still considerable concern about it. It is such an important matter that we would benefit from a little further consultation so that everyone can be satisfied that the right decision has been made.

Tony Banks: When we return from the Easter recess, would my right hon. Friend organise a short debate on the problems facing English football? I draw his attention my early-day motion 914 on the need to protect referees:
	[That this House notes with regret and concern the growing tendency for football players to seek to intimidate and influence the decision-making of match officials during the course of a game; and calls upon the English football authorities to punish most severely any player who verbally or physically abuses the match referee or his or her assistants.]
	I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 956 on the extraordinary attacks by UEFA, the European football governing body, on Chelsea coach José Mourinho. Whether or not we have a debate, will he make sure that the business on 6 April is as light as possible so that he can go to Stamford Bridge with me to watch Chelsea play Bayern Munich?

Peter Hain: I would love to have the opportunity to watch Chelsea secure another fine victory over a leading European club, but whether that is possible depends on my right hon. and hon. Friends. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Whip is discouraging me, but I will talk to him with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). As for the UEFA attack, I would call it a full frontal assault on José Mourinho. I find it extraordinary. The football authorities ought to conduct themselves with a little more dignity in these matters. When I look at the politics around international football, the politics around Government seems positively sombre and boring by comparison.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the proceedings on the urgent question, before you were in the Chair, there was an exchange when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) contradicted the Foreign Secretary very firmly from a sedentary position, stating that despite what he had said, there had been no opportunity at the Cabinet meeting for members of the Cabinet to question the Attorney-General on the legal advice that was given. Can you tell me whether Mr. Speaker has received any notification from the Foreign Secretary that he wishes to come to the Chamber to correct the record, in the light of that straight contradiction of what he told the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am fairly confident that Mr. Speaker has not received such a request. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a point for debate, rather than a point of order for the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
	Constitutional Reform Act 2005
	Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005
	Child Benefit Act 2005
	Stipends (Cessation of Special Payments) Measure 2005
	Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure 2005
	Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2005

BILL PRESENTED

Anti-Social Behaviour

Mr. Frank Field, supported by Kate Hoey, Calum Macdonald, Tony Wright and Mr. Wyatt presented a Bill to make provision in connection with antisocial behaviour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed. [Bill 99].

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[James Purnell.]

Mark Tami: Last week the Upper Waiting Hall hosted an exhibition of manufacturing in north Wales in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). I hosted an exhibition some weeks earlier highlighting the importance of the aerospace industry in north Wales. Both exhibitions showed the strength and growth of manufacturing in the area and, importantly, that industry was innovative and planning for the future. The challenge for us as politicians and Government is how we build on that success and ensure that business and industry are there for many years to come, and that   we attract new companies, particularly supply companies, to the area.
	Just over 20 years ago, my area suffered the largest job losses ever experienced at a single plant in a single day, when more than 8,000 people lost their jobs at Shotton steel works—an event we never want to experience again. But Shotton steel works, now Corus, has survived, and I am pleased to say that it is investing again in the future. I am particularly impressed with the development of Living Solutions, a modular construction that can provide housing units quickly and effectively. I know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering that for public sector workers experiencing housing difficulties, especially in the south-east. Recent reports have highlighted the sub-standard accommodation that our armed forces are obliged to endure. I urge both my right hon. Friends, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, to move the projects forward as quickly as possible.
	I am privileged to represent an area that includes the jewel of British manufacturing—the Airbus plant at Broughton. It is the global wing centre of excellence, which builds the wings for all Airbus aircraft, and it fulfils one of the stated aims of the UK to attract the most innovative, high-tech and valued added partsof industry. The Broughton site has almost 7,000 employees and supports 19,000 jobs through the Welsh supply chain and in the local economy from induced employment.
	Recent attention has understandably focused on the launch of the A380, the largest passenger airliner in the world. The first flight is expected in April this year, and the first commercial flight will be to Singapore from Heathrow. Special thanks are due to BAA for the work that it has done to adapt Heathrow airport for this new large aircraft.
	The positive economic impact that the project has had on the UK economy is to be commended. Work valued at £7.5 billion has already been placed in the UK, and over the life of the programme that is set to double, to well in excess of £15 billion. In addition, the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines are set to generate work to the value of £11 billion over the life of the programme. More than 400 companies throughout the UK are contributing to the A380 programme, and the entire project is estimated to have created 84,000 jobs, direct and indirect.
	The long-term outlook for Airbus is positive, as products last for over 40 years on average, which is good for job security. The company contributes more than £1 billion per annum to the UK trade balance each year, and with the A380 that is set to rise to more than £1.5 billion. Airbus UK has Investors in People status and is committed to developing a well trained and supported work force. The training programmes that it offers include adult skills training initiatives, young people development, and employee training and development, and the company has training partnerships at its sites.
	With around 500 apprentices overall at Airbus UK, the Broughton site is believed to have the largest apprentice training programme at one site in the UK, with nearly 400 apprentices in training and annual intakes of up to 100 people. In addition, a direct entry graduate scheme is in operation and around 100 DEGs are undergoing training and development across the two sites. All this has been possible thanks to the positive contribution of the work force and their trade union representatives. They have responded to the new challenges and enhanced the partnership approach. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Robert Dowie and the other convenors and shop stewards at the site.
	It is vital that the UK, and especially Wales, continue to invest in the future. The A380 was a watershed. It has been said that it is second only to the space shuttle in terms of the new technology and engineering included in the product. It is certainly one of the most ambitious aerospace projects in recent years. Airbus is now considering investments for its newest product, the A350. Decisions on work-sharing activities and locations for this commercial aircraft for years to come will be taken in the near future.
	It is well known that other Airbus countries—Germany and Spain—are keen to see this quality work brought to their sites. Brian Fleet, plant director at Broughton, is leading a project team putting together its business case to Airbus, and it is clearly vital that the UK provide support for that. It is worth remembering the statement made by the Chancellor during the Budget address last week, when he said:
	"The key to a sustained improvement in manufacturing is the rising level of business investment"—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 257.]
	There can be no better example than the Airbus facility at Broughton.
	EU/US trade discussions about large civil aircraft put a particular complexion on the issue. I do not propose to go into the intricacies of that debate, which is being led by the European Commission on behalf of the member states. I wish Peter Mandelson all the best in these difficult and complex discussions. The most important point in the debate is that European support is not given up as a result of US sabre rattling. Repayable launch investment has been a very effective mechanism for supporting Welsh jobs and a good investment for the British taxpayer. The money has been repaid with interest, and royalty payments are made on every aircraft that is sold.
	It is well known that Boeing has received huge support through tax breaks from Washington state. NASA has funded huge amounts of technology and research, the results of which have been passed over tothe Boeing engineers. Recently, the Japanese Government provided launch aid for the latest product, the 7E7. The Americans just do not like competition, especially when that competition offers a better product to the customer. Is it any wonder that it is now, when they have fully funded the 7E7 research, that they cry foul? As Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army" would say, "They don't like it up 'em."
	Airbus UK has the leading role globally in wing design, technology and manufacturing, but the current leadership is based on "metallic" wing solutions. The future for Airbus and for all aircraft manufacturers is in composites. They have been used for many years in items such as tennis rackets and for marine technology. Their use is predicted to grow rapidly in the coming years in many engineering applications across a wide variety of industries. The weight saving made possible by the use of composites gives major benefits in aircraft design and helps to reduce environmental impact by increasing efficiency through lower fuel usage and the ability to fly further, or to carry a greater payload for the same amount of fuel.
	The situation faced by Airbus UK is that capabilities in composite design and technology have been built up over the years by the French and German sites, mainly because composites are used in other parts of the aircraft structure. I am pleased to say that this Labour Government are well aware of the importance of composite technology, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions opened an advanced materials research centre at Airbus in Bristol just last month. Government investment of £5 million was provided for that regional centre, and it is worth noting that an engineering centre for manufacturing and materials was opened in 2003 in Port Talbot. That was one of the first parts of the national composite network established by the Government.
	The A350 will be the first Airbus civil product with the wing primary structure made largely from composite materials. In order for Airbus UK to win that vital wing business, there will need to be considerable investment in new engineering and manufacturing facilities, in work force training and in composite processes.
	That is why UK repayable launch investment is so important and will play a key role in securing the requisite UK work share in that vital project. I am sure that our European partners will deliver that support. We need to show the same level of commitment.
	The Government have demonstrated their support for Airbus in the past. I urge that we do so again. It would help to secure the future for many tens of thousands of British workers, providing quality and secure employment not just for today but for many years to come.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Teddy Taylor: As the indications are that we are likely to have an election soon, I thought that there would be no harm in using the Easter Adjournment debate to place on record a number of issues that we should pay attention to in the new Parliament and perhaps in the forthcoming election.
	Five things concern me and I hope that people will think seriously about them. The first and most obvious one concerns where I used to come from, Scotland, where we have the problem of devolution. We hardly ever talk about devolution but it has an horrendous cost for Scotland, Wales and London. The least we should do, bearing in mind the fact that there has been a huge change of opinion on devolution since it was introduced, is to give the people of Scotland, Wales and London the opportunity to say whether they wish their devolved Parliaments and Assemblies to continue.
	I visit Wales, which is a lovely place. I also visit Scotland a great deal. I am certainly of the opinion that there has been a huge change of opinion. People feel that they have far too many politicians, that it is costing far too much and that something should be done. What worries me as we face the election is that I cannot identify a single party that says that the people of Scotland, Wales and London should have the opportunity to say whether they wish their devolved government to continue. We should give them such a chance, and I hope that whoever wins the election will make that clear.
	The second problem is that of asylum seekers. It is a frightening problem. In some areas, because people have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the Government have lost control of the asylum seeker problem, we find that race relations are deteriorating, which is bad for communities and for the country as a whole. I am glad to say that, in Southend, where I reside, we have good community relations, but in other parts of the country people feel that things are going wrong and that something should be done. The greatest danger of all is if the parties start shouting at each other about who is to blame for the problem. We should be looking at the real problem and seeing what can be done.
	The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who is one of the most agreeable politicians I have come across, answered a question just last week that I put to him, asking how many people were told last year that they had to leave the country. The answer was 64,000. I then asked him how many had left and the answer was 4,000. That is not because of the inefficiency or incapacity of the Government. It is simply because of the basic problem that asylum seekers who come here have a habit of destroying their passports and all their papers. So when the Government say that they have to go back to their own country, their own country says that it does not want them because they do not have any papers or any proof of who they are.
	I know that those figures are exact, because I was given them by the Minister. I have been told by others, although it has not been confirmed, that there are actually 250,000 people in Britain today who have no right to remain here and who should be back in their own countries. We certainly should show the utmost appreciation and help to people who are being persecuted, but when we have that massive number of people and nothing can apparently be done because of the problem of the absence of papers, we should face up to that. The most obvious thing is to have some initiative, taken perhaps by the United Nations, so that when someone comes to our country from another country claiming asylum, there is a document that will enable them to be sent back if the Government decide that they should be.
	If we do not face up to that, we will have the problem of a large number of people in this country who no longer have the right to benefits and who will look to other places to get money. It will not be good for anything, and I hope that the issue will be faced up to no matter who wins the election.
	The third problem that we have to face up to is that of the European Union. It has haunted me for 25 of the 40 years that I have been here. What worries me immensely is the way in which democracy is being fundamentally undermined because of our membership of the European Union. When I came here, the MPs or the Lords decided all the taxes we had. Basically, the European Union is taking more and more power and the people's views are utterly irrelevant.
	We sometimes forget that a good democracy depends on the people having a view and being able to express anopinion. For example, when a Conservative Government brought in a poll tax that people did not like, they were able to reject the Government and to get that changed. The people had power, but the number of people taking part in elections now is simply fading away, because a lot of them feel that there is little point in voting.
	I had the pleasure of speaking to a lovely group of school children from London who were being shown around here. There were 70 of them aged 17. They were delightful. I talked to them about the political system and how it worked here. Then we talked about politics. It was quite disturbing. Seven of them told me that they thought we had a dreadful Government. They thought that the Prime Minister was a rascal, that the war in Iraq was shameful and that public services had gone to pot. That rather cheered me up as a Conservative. Then they talked about the Conservatives. They did not say a nasty thing about them. There was no capitalist pig stuff or anything like that. They just thought that they were totally irrelevant and they had no views on them at all. They then talked about Liberal Democrats. The only opinion expressed was that they were slightly nicer people but they had no policies.
	I then asked those youngsters, "How are you going to vote at the next election? You will have to decide if democracy is going to continue." We had a poll. I asked how many were going to vote Labour and the answer was none; how many were going to vote Conservative and the answer was none; how many were going to vote Lib Dem and the answer was one out of 70. Although that may appear to be a victory to some degree for the Liberal Democrats, what should worry us is the number of young people who are simply switching off.
	I went to the university of Aberdeen to speak to a meeting of 300 young people. It was beautiful and very exciting for me but what appalled me was that, when I asked, "How many of you are involved in politics?" the answer was: one out of 300. When I was at university, everyone was involved in a party or movement of some sort. The fact is that young people are switching off and the number of people voting is going down.
	Why is that happening? It is happening because people can no longer express an opinion about the things that they care about. Take a basic issue of the old days like capital punishment or corporal punishment. We can no longer determine that because of the European convention. The treaty will confirm that if it comes in. The same applies even to things such as the export of live cattle. A group of five people recently called at my surgery, including a clergyman who brought a dog with him to show that he was fond of animals. The group asked me whether I would vote against the export of live cattle. I had to say that I was sorry, but there was nothing we could do about that. They asked whether they could go to their European MP. I told them not to waste their time, because if the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, nobody would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg. They then asked me where they could go.
	Similarly, some of my pensioner constituents asked me whether it was really true that the Government had been told that we had to pay the heating allowance to people in the overseas territories of Europe. I had to explain that, yes, we had to pay it to people living in Guadeloupe, Martinique or the Azores, where there is sunshine all the time, but that people living in Iceland or northern Canada, where it is cold, do not get it. They asked, "Why don't you do something about that as an MP?" The answer, of course, is that we have no power at all over such matters.
	Some time ago, we had a debate about the age of homosexual consent—a big, vital issue—but it was pointless, because the European Court of Justice had decided on the matter 18 months before. There is a basic problem in Europe because of the destruction of democracy. The big problem ahead, which I hope people will think about and which has nothing to do with party politics, is what is happening to Europe's population. The United Nations has calculated that if trends do not change, the number of people living in Europe in 50 years' time will have declined by 100 million because of the way in which population numbers are going. We see that in Scotland more readily than elsewhere, and we see it throughout Europe. We will have a shrinking tax base, more demand for health care and pensions, lower inward investment and, frankly, heightening social tensions, given the number of people coming into these countries. It is a frightening situation and we have to ask whether Europe has the ability, without democracy, to resolve the problem.
	In Southend-on-Sea, we worry about a fourth issue—the Government's ability to ensure that things done by organisations can be questioned. We have had a bit of a nightmare over the rates issue. In Southend, there was a relatively low increase—although it was an increase—of 4 per cent., but unfortunately we have had to cut back on public services because it has been calculated that the population has reduced from 180,000 to 162,000. However, as someone who lives in Southend, I can say that there has been no reduction in our population at all. The numbers attending local general practitioners' surgeries have increased, the number of houses has increased and our schools are busier than ever; and we think that the calculation is completely wrong. But what can we do about the situation? Home Office Ministers say, "It's nothing to do with us." Such issues must be resolved; if we cannot sort out problems, we will not sort out anything at all.
	My last point concerns the Iraq war. I have often been in a minority in the House of Commons, unfortunately at times, although I find that opinions seem to change in my direction. I was one of those who opposed the Iraq war because I thought it pure hypocrisy on the part of the Americans, who, having supported Saddam Hussein and given him all the weapons of mass destruction for the invasion of Iran, then turned against him. The Government now have a terrible problem, although I do not mean to be unkind, as it will apply to all Governments in future. The statement that we heard today concerning the lady who resigned from a Government post and whose letter was not published suggests that faith in the Government is declining.
	I have three children, one of whom is in the Army and was out in Iraq. I can tell the House that it is frightening for any parent to be in that position. I would say this to the Government: in this situation, where lives are being lost in the services, and Americans and the Iraqis themselves are suffering in huge numbers, the least that they could do is to explain the whole situation to the public and tell them the whole truth. Frankly, it is not enough for us to shout across the Chamber at each other about who is to blame; particularly when lives are at stake, we should do all that we can to tell the truth.
	The crucial issue is what will happen in the future. I believe that in Iraq we have created an horrendous mess that will be difficult to resolve. Having been misled on Iraq, I hope that the Government will not make the same mistake on Iran, which is a country with many positive aspects that we should face up to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you were kind to call me early in the debate; I appreciate that very much. I hope that Members of the House will think about the points that I have made; it is just possible that I might be right.

Harry Barnes: In response to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), I agree that young people are switched off by party politics, but they often have a great interest in politics in a wider sense. They are very much involved in a big campaign that is taking place at the moment—Make Poverty History. They have great concern about environmental matters, the quality of life generally, and issues of war such as the invasion of Iraq, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We need to realise that it is not the case that there is nothing out there as far as younger generations are concerned—there is a great deal, but politicians need to focus on making things seem relevant to them. I want to speak about young people, but in a different sense from their involvement in party politics.
	When parents have their lives shattered by the actions or failures of others in relation to their children, they often experience a deep-seated need for a form of official recognition of their plight. When that is not forthcoming, the deep psychological scars that they have experienced can never be fully lifted from their lives. I shall give three examples of what I mean.
	First, like many other hon. Members, I have a constituent whose adult son was killed by a reckless driver, but the courts did not deliver a significant decision against the culprits. My constituent now feels that his son's life was undervalued. I knew the son and was dealing with a Child Support Agency case on his behalf.
	Secondly, I have parents in my constituency who, years after suffering the trauma of their child's death in hospital, discovered that Sheffield children's hospital held a wide range of slides and blocks of their late child, with other body parts having been disposed of following a coroner's post-mortem. Yet the official recognition that eventually emerges in hospital post-mortem cases has not emerged in their child's case, and they still therefore feel aggrieved. The mother once said to me that after her child's death she had the comfort of knowing that no one could take away her memories of him, but that is exactly what the body part revelations did to her.
	The third case is the one on which I wish to concentrate—it is that of Christopher Butcher from Dronfield in my constituency, where I also live. Christopher is much the same age as my own son—approaching 37. In normal circumstances, they would have known each other, attending the same classes in the same school, but Christopher suffers profound disabilities and irreversible brain damage. Although he obtains day care from the social services of Derbyshire county council, his parents look after him, and as they become older the task becomes greater and they worry about his future. They have compelling reasons to believe that his condition was caused by the whooping cough vaccine—an issue to which they were alerted by publicity in 1977—when Christopher was nine years old.
	I have been involved with Christopher's case throughout my entire parliamentary career of 18 years. Indeed, my predecessor, the late Ray Ellis, also dealt with it. I first met Mr. and Mrs. Butcher shortly after I first arrived here in 1987. I cannot use this Adjournment debate to help to open a door to obtain official recognition of the reasons why Christopher was robbed of his normal life, for each door has long since been firmly closed, although I, and especially Mrs. Butcher, kept trying to prise those doors open. All that I can now do, in what is probably my final Commons speech before retirement, is to put a few words on the record so that at least Mr. and Mrs. Butcher can feel that Parliament has heard something of their case.
	Mr. and Mrs. Butcher have tried numerous avenues, including the family practitioner committee, numerous Ministers in Conservative and Labour Administrations, solicitors, the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, the vaccine damage tribunal and the Solicitors Complaints Bureau—the latter because one of their solicitors had links with the consultant with whom they were in dispute. Their efforts always fell foul of a series of standard barriers. First, too much time was said to have elapsed since Christopher was given the vaccine in 1968. Secondly, the balance of arguments was said to go against them. Thirdly, new evidence was insisted on, but when it was provided, in what we called a leaked letter, it was dismissed for the balance-of-argument reason again.
	I always thought that, in reality, the balance told in favour of Mr. and Mrs. Butcher's case. The timing of the vaccination shortly preceded the onset of brain damage. The leaked letter that I mentioned showed medical evidence that the probability was that an error had been made in Christopher's hospital treatment, while the solicitor, who had links with Christopher's consultant, failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. Butcher of a closing date for applications to the vaccine damage tribunal.
	In 2002, Mrs. Butcher wrote a letter to the Whitby Gazette about the whooping cough vaccine. She asked whether people were aware
	"that in 1968 two batches (3741 and 3732), each batch containing an estimated 60,000 individual doses, never passed key toxicity tests. One batch was 14 times more potent than the British standard doses, the other batch 16 times more potent. A further 14 batches were not tested at all and some experts now believe these batches could be the reason for a massive rise in reported adverse reaction to whooping cough vaccine."
	Mrs. Butcher's strongest point is that, as a baby, Christopher was in hospital with meningitis and made a good recovery. However, he was then immunised despite the fact that Department of Health guidelines, which she did not know about at the time, said that that should not happen in such cases. I quote from a letter that she wrote to me on 28 June 2000:
	"Clear contra indications make this the worst type of vaccine damage because it could and should have been avoided. These contra indications set by the Department of Health came into being in 1956 to safeguard children like Christopher who suffered a serious neurological illness to protect them against vaccination. These safeguards were issued to all prescribing GPs in 1957. As you are aware, Christopher made a full and complete recovery from this illness"
	and was then given the vaccination.
	My files on the case are extensive, and in the time available to me today I have been able to give only a flavour of the matters involved. I just hope that Mr. and Mrs. Butcher will feel that a few minutes in the Commons, where they have heard about their son's plight and their grievances, provide something for them, and that they will recognise that their MP, having whittled away at aspects of their case over the years, felt it important enough to give it his final parliamentary spot for a full speech.

Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has demonstrated yet again, after a distinguished parliamentary career, that speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves is a very important role for every Member of this House. I am grateful to him for how he presented the case, and I have a similar task.
	Following previous recess debates, the Deputy Leader of the House has been meticulous in obtaining answers to the questions that we have raised, even if some of those answers have been far from illuminating. He may recall that I have raised on several occasions the alarming case of Sergeant Steven Roberts, the first British casualty in the Iraq invasion, who came from Wadebridge in my constituency.
	Today happens to be exactly the second anniversary of his avoidable, unnecessary and truly tragic death. Hon. Members may remember that Steve died because he had to give back his enhanced combat body armour—which, it is now accepted, would have saved his life—due to the Ministry of Defence's failure to ensure sufficient supply of that essential protection. All the evidence is that if he had been wearing the ECBA, he would still be alive today.
	As I pointed out as long ago as the recess debate before Christmas in 2003—on 18 December 2003, at column 1753—the National Audit Office reported that no fewer than 200,000 sets of vital equipment had been "lost" by the MOD in the previous few years, and nothing had been done to remedy the discrepancy in the long months of preparation leading up to the Iraq war. I note in passing that today's report from the Select Committee on Defence points to yet more discrepancies and inadequacies in the preparations made by the Ministry of Defence both before and since the invasion.
	Sergeant Roberts's family were told at an early stage that the fatal shot might well have come from a colleague's weapon—a sad case of so-called friendly fire. However, the fact that it was fatal was due entirely to the lack of effective protection.
	On 19 January 2004—14 months ago—I took Steve's widow Samantha, his mother and his brother to meet the Secretary of State. We were given an explicit promise that the investigation would be completed as soon as possible, that he would meet us again when it was, and that the MOD would not dodge its responsibilities. He even accepted that he and the Ministry would face up to the consequences of the logistics failure.
	Some 14 months later, that has not happened. Instead, there have been constant attempts to pass the buck and shift the blame. Talk of courts martial and of the Metropolitan police examining the case for a prosecution of the unfortunate other members of Sergeant Roberts's unit all have the unpleasant stench of a search for scapegoats. Meanwhile, his widow Samantha Roberts and her solicitor await confirmation of the previous informal hints of accepted liability.
	All Members will recognise that I have a duty to demand a proper explanation from Defence Ministers to establish what is going on. The family have surely waited far too long for a full explanation and for justice. I know that they share my frustration that lessons still seem not to have been learned from the episode. We cannot even be sure that such an avoidable tragedy will not be repeated.
	As it happens, I have also been involved as a Member in a number of exercises to try to support and assist service families. There are many in the south-west, but obviously other Members here will represent them, too. Successive Governments have not treated service families with the respect and consideration that they should have. For example, ever since the first Gulf war, there have been all too many examples of veterans whose health has been devastated by their service. My particular interest in the chronic long-term effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides has led me to work for some years with the Royal British Legion to seek a fully independent and expert investigation. Whether the impact was simply from OP poisons, the combined effect with the cocktail of inoculations, or some other exposures, many troops—hundreds and possibly thousands—were sent to one of the most dangerous war zones on our behalf and placed at extra risk to their health by the MOD. Some have died, and many others have had their lives and livelihoods ruined as a result.
	Surely that is no way to encourage recruitment to and retention in the armed forces. Is it any wonder that the armed services are having such difficulty in that respect? As we all know, it is service families who often provide new recruits, and the way in which they have been treated has done great harm to our national interest.
	As it happens, we in the Gulf war group in the Royal British Legion eventually succeeded, despite rather than because of ministerial interest, in securing an independent inquiry into Gulf war illnesses, headed by Lord Lloyd. I have challenged the Prime Minister to permit Ministers and civil servants to give evidence to that inquiry, but without success. Although, clearly, its robust conclusions give victims at long last some sense that their fate and needs are being recognised, that is no thanks to the Ministry of Defence.
	That group, of course, is a cross-party group, and from my experience in the House, I believe that many of us can perform an important function through cross-party work on such issues. My most constructive and rewarding preoccupations have been on a cross-party basis, and I like to think that such activity has been even more important than my contribution as a Front-Bench representative of my party and even as my party's Chief Whip. I am proudest, however, of my occasional role as a facilitator and catalyst for such cross-party initiatives. I hope that the House will forgive me if I comment briefly on the way in which we operate in that respect, as I suspect that, like other Members today, this speech will be my swansong.
	In addition to the all-party organophosphates group that I formed and have chaired since 1992, which has made some progress, I have been a humble contributor to the Parliament First group, led by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), which has done important work in identifying the way in which Parliament can improve its scrutiny of the Executive. I have worked in the Modernisation Committee, which has made improvements, on a cross-party basis, to the way in which the House operates. I am also currently engaged in the Hansard Society commission, Parliament in the Public Eye, which is chaired by the noble Lord Puttnam. I hope that that will report soon after the election with helpful, positive and constructive suggestions as to the way in which Parliament can restore its authority and reputation.
	As Members might know, I recently brought together a cross-party team of experienced parliamentarians, such as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), to kick-start again the movement towards reform of the other end of the building, which I believe to be both urgent and extremely necessary if Parliament is to re-establish its authority collectively.
	I am devoted to this place and what it represents. I am even more convinced than when I returned here, however, that we must deal with the essentially wasteful, trivialising and disenchanting nature of a great deal of the confrontational exchanges here. The ritual of mock mediaeval jousting in a mock mediaeval palace should be put into the dustbin of history.
	The main change in Parliament between my first brief appearance in 1974 and my return in 1992 was the emergence and evolution of Select Committees. The contrast between the proceedings in this Chamber and in the replica line-up in Standing Committees on Bills, and the more consensual work in which we are all involved, across parties, in the best Select Committees, is marked. Select Committees provide genuine and effective accountability. Any Member who might have doubts about that should read the annual report of theLiaison Committee, which shows that Select Committees are ensuring effective accountability and making sure that the Government are scrutinised effectively.
	Bill Committees, however, are now certainly the weakest link in the whole process of legislative scrutiny. They cannot remain unreformed for much longer if we are to produce better legislation and enhance the reputation of Parliament. I spent this morning in the Inquiries Bill Committee, on which a Government Member sits who also happened to be a member of the Select Committee that has been considering those issues. The cross-fertilisation of such careful scrutiny does not come across into the consideration of legislation, however, which is surely a major weakness in the way in which the House operates.
	Let us also contrast the absurd music hall performances at noon every Wednesday with the real interrogation of the Prime Minister in Portcullis House twice a year. That truly provides more light than heat, and shows Parliament operating more effectively. I give full credit to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston, for persuading the Prime Minister to submit himself to those two-and-a-half hours of solo investigation, and to the Prime Minister for being persuaded. I suspect that any future Prime Minister who sought to step back from that would be held to ridicule.
	I am also proud of my small role in the introduction of Westminster Hall sittings, which have enabled Back-Bench Members of all parties, and perhaps Government Back Benchers especially, to probe and question without the artificial us-versus-them bias that we enjoy across this divide. The shape of the room, as with Select Committees, reflects the multi-party, pluralist character of our Parliament, at long last catching up with the end of the two-party system in the country at large.
	I am delighted, too, by the progress—still limited but useful—in improving access by the electorate to the decision-making process here. I do not mean the expensive, in my view, and certainly long-term development of a visitor centre, but the two-way, interactive electronic engagement that is now possible between our work and the workoutside. The Modernisation Committee report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public", has some useful contributions to make to the process, and I hope that the necessary resources will be provided in the new Parliament.
	I leave the House with mixed feelings—with some achievements, I hope, but much unfinished business. Having been heavily involved in every election since 1964, I will no doubt have terrible withdrawal symptoms. Indeed, I may need some clinical treatment to help me to deal with the political addiction. On that cheerful note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you, and all my colleagues—in all parts of the House—a very happy Easter and very best wishes for whatever lies in store for them in the next few weeks.

Tony Banks: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is absolutely right—I have worked with him on a number of all-partyinitiatives, particularly on animal welfare, demonstrating that we are at our best when we work together.
	This is probably the last occasion on which I will make a contribution in this Chamber. As ever, I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Having decided to stand down after 22 years as an MP, I have been intrigued by the degree of surprise expressed by many colleagues at my decision. Of course, it is far better that people are surprised that one is going than surprised that one is staying.
	One of my Labour colleagues, who will remain nameless, asked me, "How seriously ill are you?" I was tempted, as it is easy to give way to such temptation, to say that I had only a few weeks to live, but I thought that I might be tempting the fates were I to do so, although I might get run over on the way home this evening. It still took a while to convince him, however, that I was in the rudest health and looking forward to exploring new challenges and possibilities. Of course, it could all go pear-shaped, and I might end up busking on the underground. If that happens, I hope that colleagues will take pity on me and drop the odd guinea into my cap.
	I want to use this Adjournment debate to draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House, and of the whole House, to some of the dangers and problems that I believe we face as MPs. The coming general election will be only the second in which I have not been a candidate since 1970. It will be an odd feeling to be on the sidelines, but not a wholly unwelcome one. It will be pleasant to think that the election campaign might be an opportunity for a searching and constructive debate on the big issues of the day. Of course, it will not be, any more than the preceding election campaigns have been. Individually, we would all wish for that rational debate, but when it kicks off, we will find ourselves drawn almost involuntarily into some fairly unseemly brawls.
	Unfortunately, the more we kick lumps out of each other, the more those malevolent reporters of political events sneer, and the more our stock falls in the estimation of the electorate. Of course, we expect journalists to be snide and insulting—that is what they do. We also expect to be told by loudmouths in bars that all politicians are incompetent, venal and self-serving. In fact, I remain constantly surprised by the number of people who seem to know precisely how best to run the country, but unfortunately, they are either to busy writing for some two-bit rag or propping up a bar to find the time to get round to doing it.
	As MPs, obviously, we have our political differences. We should not, however, sell each other short. Each and every one of us comes into this place committed to try to improve the welfare of our constituencies and our country. In the process, undoubtedly, we make mistakes. No one in his or her right mind, however, would seek election in order deliberately to make matters worse. We give succour to our enemies and further undermine respect for Parliament if we attempt to score political points by accusing each other of bad faith or venality. Parliament might seem a robust institution, but it is constantly being undermined by forces outside, and it would be a tragedy of epic proportion were we also to allow it to be undermined from within.In this country, we enjoy one of the least corrupt political systems in the world, but no one who reads our newspapers could be blamed for believing the complete opposite. We are not being incestuous when we stand up to defend our position as Members of Parliament. If we are not prepared to advocate the work that we do and the reputation of this place, how can we expect those outside to do it for us?
	Every time we accuse one another of bad faith, we further undermine the already dangerously low levels of confidence in us among the electorate. We have not really enjoyed democracy for long enough in this country to be confident beyond any doubt that it is strong enough to withstand any attack made on it. In rightly exercising our political differences, we should never forget that part of our collective duty and responsibility relates to the protection and enhancement of this vital and still vulnerable institution.
	It has been a privilege to serve in this place, and at times I have probably sorely tried the patience of both my constituents and my colleagues, but I also know that in politics we are never given the benefit of the doubt. Unless we tell people what we have done or are doing, they will presume that we have done little or nothing. I have therefore compiled, for the record, a short statistical account of my 22 years in the House.
	Since my election in 1983, I have maintained a full-time fully staffed constituency office in the east end. Together with my fantastic staff, I have dealt with thousands of personal cases, not always with success but always with our best endeavours. There are those who maintain that I have only worked to ban hunting—a cause that I am proud to have played a part in achieving. Let me disabuse them. Since 1983 I have introduced 20 ten-minute Bills covering a range of subjects including fixed-term Parliaments, a ban on war toys, a compulsory national community service system, and the introduction of a directly elected mayor for London. A number of those Bills eventually surfaced as legislation, and I expect that a number more will do so in due course.
	During the same period I have tabled 7,540 written questions and asked 719 oral questions. In fact, following the business statement it is now 720. I have tabled 340 early-day motions and made 1,383 speeches and interventions—1,384 once I have sat down, which I shall do shortly.
	Without doubt there has been quantity in my endeavours. I will leave others to judge their quality. It has been an enormous honour to be a Member of this House, and I stand down with grateful thanks to my party, my constituents and all my parliamentary colleagues—and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Peter Viggers: It is indeed a privilege to follow the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Both have made a major contribution to the House in their different ways, and they have always done so with sincerity. I have always enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for West Ham. I particularly remember the delight and surprise when he was made Minister for Sport: he seemed as surprised as the rest of us. He made a major contribution at that time.
	I make no apology for raising the issue of the Royal Hospital Haslar. Colleagues whom I have met over the last couple of days asked if I proposed to speak about it, and I replied that I did. It is a source of amusement to some of my colleagues that I can go on pursuing such an issue, but I am going to do so now. It really matters to my constituents, and there is nothing at all amusing about it for them.
	There are three strands to the issue. First, the Royal hospital Haslar is a military hospital. Indeed, it is the last military hospital in the United Kingdom. When it was announced that the hospital would close in December 1998 and move to a new centre for defence medicine, there was shock and disappointment in the area, and the announcement was greeted by a rally and march of some 22,000 people. The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine has indeed moved to Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham, and the planned development there of a £200 million new centre has been cancelled, leaving the Defence Medical Services spread across Birmingham in penny packets. They have no centre for messing and recreation, and are in different units of accommodation all over Birmingham. The key specialties—general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, general medicine and anaesthetics—are still seriously undermanned. There is a serious problem in defence medicine.
	The second strand is the civilian strand. The overall plan in South Hampshire is to develop Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth through a private finance initiative. It was initially thought that it would cost about £70 million; the latest estimate is about £200 million, and it is some 15 months late. There is no commercial or financial closure, and no immediate prospect of either.
	The third strand is what is planned by the primary care trust in Fareham and Gosport, which has now been merged with East Hampshire. The PCT had planned to build secondary care around the PFI bid at Queen Alexandra hospital, but the bid is faltering. As I have said, it is 15 months late and nowhere near completion. The PCT presented plans based on a consultation process, which involved focusing on either the Haslar hospital or on Gosport War Memorial hospital. The PCT consulted widely, and held a number of public meetings. Throughout those meetings, it received feedback from the area that it wanted the Haslar hospital to continue, yet eventually, despite a public meeting of 700 people at St Mary's church, Alverstoke, which I chaired and which unanimously required the retention of the hospital, the PCT decided to press ahead with the proposal to close it and focus on Gosport War Memorial hospital.
	The next stage was consideration of the PCT's decision by the overview and scrutiny committee of Hampshire county council. The committee decided to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health because he has the opportunity, if he so chooses, to refer the matter to an independent reconfiguration panel which can look at health care in the area as a whole and come up with conclusions. The panel has been invoked only once, in East Kent, where it decided that the focusing of all attention and resources on the PFI bid at a larger hospital was wrong and that existing hospitals should be used instead. The situation is very similar to that in South Hampshire, where we also maintain that too many resources and initiatives are being put into a PFI development. We need the reference to the independent reconfiguration panel. It is the only way in which the juggernaut of the PFI bid and the PCT's proposals can be derailed.
	I asked for a meeting with the Minister of State for Health, and a meeting was eventually arranged for 22 March, last Tuesday. I proposed to take with me representatives of each of the parties from Gosport, which would demonstrate to the Minister that there was all-party support for the reference to the panel and an opportunity to examine the whole issue again. The Minister cancelled the meeting, with no more than a day's notice and giving no particular reason other than that he now had another meeting to attend.
	This is the current position. A decision made by the primary care trust is widely unpopular in the area. It is believed that it will not be possible to continue with the PFI bid and the retention of Queen Alexandra hospital as the only main hospital in the area, which would involve fewer operating theatres and fewer beds than we currently have. We have no alternative date fixed for the meeting. I wrote to the Minister on Tuesday telling him that I proposed to raise the issue during this debate, and asking him for an early meeting. I drew his attention to the case of Wyre Forest, where an independent candidate stood for election on the basis of the campaign to save Kidderminster hospital. I need hardly remind the House what happened in that constituency, where the views of the local community were flouted and the Labour candidate was defeated by a massive majority.
	It is monstrous that, as we approach the likely date of the election, we should have to deal with a cancelled meeting and no restitution of that meeting, and that my constituents do not know what will happen. I warn the Government that the issue of Haslar hospital will play a large part in the coming election, and I urge them now, even at this late stage, to rearrange that meeting so that people of all parties in my constituency can make their views known to the Minister and ensure that there is to be a reference to the independent reconfiguration panel.

Alan Hurst: Before I start my speech, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who is retiring. As he and other hon. Members will know, I have had some association with his constituency over a number of years, and I can confirm the enormously high regard in which he is held by people of all political parties.
	I turn now to a matter that affects my own parliamentary division of Braintree, and it concerns a road. For a Member who represents a rural or semi-rural area close to a town, roads can be a plus but they can also be a minus. Many Members will have travelled along the M11 out of London towards Stansted or beyond, and many will have travelled along the A12 from London to the east coast. A large part of the area between those two roads is my parliamentary constituency. Joining those roads is another road: the A120.
	I do not wish to exaggerate, but until recently, most of the A120 was little more than an improved country road. It is now right to say, however, that after many years, many deliberations and an extensive public inquiry, the road west of Braintree leading to Stansted is a modern, fast-moving motor road. Indeed, those who travel on it are amazed at how quickly Stansted is left behind and Braintree appears. On reaching Braintree—which, not many years ago, the old A120 used to go through—there is a bypass. The cars spin along it, their drivers thinking that they are going to the end of the land, as they travel in such speed and style. They then reach a landmark that has historically been known as Galley's corner, although some people now call it McDonald's corner or the "cholesterol roundabout", because it is surrounded by fast-food outlets, multiplex cinemas, designer fashion shops and every other attribute of modern life. The roundabout, though, was not designed to take such a throughput of traffic, and however quickly someone might leave Stansted and approach Braintree, they will soon hit an enormous tailback.
	However, that is not really the point that I want to raise, because the Highways Agency is seeking to resolve that tailback problem by constructing the A120 east of Braintree through to the A12, thus joining the two cardinal routes. Every time we design or construct a road, there will be winners and losers. I went to see the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about this matter about 18 months ago, because a rumour was being circulated by one of the political parties in my division that the line of route was already known. These stories always spread like wildfire—there is always a conspiracy involved in anything to do with government. Those of us who have served in public office for a number of years performing various functions will know that the conspiracy theory is invariably not the one that holds water, and that another theory will always be much more apt.
	I went to see the Minister, and he showed me on a map that there were about 13 possible routes—I did not count them—to take this road east of Braintree to join the A12. I was informed that there was no preferred route at that stage—they were all being worked on and considered—so I went away and told my constituents that I understood that either three or six options would be presented to the people of Braintree and the adjacent areas, to ascertain which route they would prefer. Indeed, I believe that that was the policy that was pursued on the western section.
	My constituents and I were therefore somewhat surprised—to put it mildly—when it was announced in February that there was one preferred route. We were being given the Henry Ford option: "You can have any route you like, as long as it's this one." It is right to say that one or two other lines were sketched in on the maps as possible routes, but it is not for us humble members of the public to design roads. That is not our calling. The designers of roads are engineers and surveyors, and it is for them to put before the local people a number of choices about where a road should go.
	The route that has been chosen gives great offence to the historic, tightly knit communities through which, or close to which, it will run. It will leave the roundabout that I have mentioned and sweep across country at elevated level past the villages of Tye Green, Cressing and Lanham Green. The fact that it will be elevated will make a difference, because people will be able to see the wretched thing from their back gardens. Not only that, but they will have the disadvantage of its being illuminated at night, and there will be a constant hum of traffic going through. They will experience a sudden change from living in an historic rural community to living by the side of a motor road.
	After that, the road will skirt Silver End, which I have had occasion to mention here before. It is the model village that was built by the Crittall window-making company, and which produced the first Labour Member of Parliament for the county of Essex in 1923. The road will skirt close to the village before cutting across country between the town of Coggeshall and the village of Kelvedon, passing a little hamlet called Half Way, which might not be at the forefront of hon. Members' minds. I called a meeting at Half Way, a hamlet of about 40 residents, and we got a higher turnout than we do at most elections: I think that about 35 attended. They were very reasonable; they did not scream and shout. They discussed the reasons why it was inappropriate for this road to run right past their little hamlet to the next hamlet and the next village along before crashing down into the Blackwater valley.
	The Blackwater river is not one of the great rivers of history—it is not the Mississippi or even the Thames. It is a river that runs across Essex and out into the North sea, with a number of tributaries, and it provides a real aspect of old England that is so often now missed and lamented: a river valley with water meadows. We read in the environmental magazines that one area of the countryside that has declined more than any other is the water meadow, yet in the Blackwater valley we have water meadows teeming with extensive wildlife that is native to old Essex. The new road will sweep down the valley, and rather than tunnelling under the river, it will go over the top of it. It will be quite hard to disguise a road bridge of that kind. Eventually, the road will make its way out through other fairly unspoilt countryside to the north of Feering to join the A12.
	A resident who lives on the A12—a brave man, but he has jolly good double glazing on the front of his property—bought his bungalow many years ago and improved it over the years. He told me that he had bought a little field at the back of his property, and that the road would go across the corner of it. He said that there was also a railway line there. He told me that if the road was built he would no longer be able to sit in his back garden and look at the stars coming out in the clear sky, and that he would have to look instead at a sweeping bridge with traffic roaring across it, right at the bottom of his garden.
	It is open to the Highways Agency to go back to their drawing boards and to conduct proper studies of alternative routes for this road. I do not think that they have carried out environmental surveys, or that they have fully assessed the social impact of a road of this kind sweeping through this part of Essex. I am pleading on behalf of my constituents. I want them to make representations to the Highways Agency—as I am doing indirectly now, through the Minister—in their own handwriting, rather than ticking boxes on a standard questionnaire. Questionnaires are designed to elicit the answer that the designer of the questionnaire wants. I want to see as many letters as possible going to the Highways Agency describing exactly what the consequences of this road will be in blighting the lives and properties of so many people, and I want the Highways Agency to come back and say that it is going to offer us costed, planned, easy-to-understand options from which we can choose.

David Atkinson: In addition to following my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), it is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), and perhaps to precede my   hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Coming from Southend myself, I once had my eye on both their seats. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). He may recall that he was the chairman of Southend's Young Socialists when I was the chairman of Southend's Young Conservatives. I wholeheartedly endorse the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East.
	As this is likely to be my last speech to the House, I want to refer to one of the principal interests that I have pursued since my election here in 1977, in addition, of course, to my constituency interests. As a student, I had hitchhiked to the Soviet Union, where I saw at first hand its appalling denial of human rights. A few years later, I saw hundreds of demonstrators in support of the Prague spring being shot in Wenceslas square.
	The opportunity to do something came shortly after my election here, when Margaret Thatcher appointed me to the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, I note that in their places are the hon. Members for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), all of whom are on the current delegation. Incidentally, West Ham was the first seat that I fought, and it was also the first seat that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West fought. In addition, you yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been a valued member of our delegation in the past.
	My membership of our delegation enabled me to produce several reports exposing the human rights situation in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. When those countries became independent and free, I had the good fortune to be the chairman of the committee responsible for their accession to the Council of Europe. But my principal preoccupation has been as the rapporteur since 1989, first for the Soviet Union and subsequently for the Russian Federation, and at next month's part-session in Strasbourg the Assembly must decide whether my work should cease because Russia has honoured its commitments and has now reached acceptable standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
	I am under considerable pressure from our Russian colleagues to recommend that Russia should no longer be subjected to the humiliation of such detailed scrutiny, or "outside interference" as the ultra-nationalists describe it. I am told that just as—as I explained to the House in my Adjournment debate on 10 January 1996—I had recommended that Russia should join the Council of Europe with the argument that it would be better both for Russia and for Europe for it to be in than out, so I should now recommend the end of my detailed monitoring of its commitments to encourage President Putin to pursue his reforms against the darker forces that threaten Russia today, and, it is also said, encourage him to attend the Council of Europe's third summit on 16 and 17 May in Warsaw.
	I cannot recommend the de-monitoring of Russia by the Council of Europe at the present time, and my latest progress report to the Assembly explains why. Russia has not met its obligations to be a free democracy. It has yet to hold elections that are fair. As the most recent parliamentary and presidential elections demonstrated, Russia does not have a national television broadcasting system that is unbiased and free of state influence and control. Thus I am insisting that at least one mainstream channel that is politically neutral and impartial should be established, which is also the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers.
	The independence of the judiciary is another basic obligation of membership of the Council of Europe. I welcome the considerable reforms that introduce the presumption of innocence, juries and magistrate courts, and the requirement of court orders for search and arrest warrants, which was not the case at the time of the Soviet Union. But recent court cases, such as those concerning the physicist, Valentin Danilov and the scientist, Igor Sutyagin, and the current Yukos trial, suggest that Russia does not yet have a rule of law that is firmly entrenched.
	With regard to the detailed commitments that Russia made upon accession in 1996, I welcome the considerable reduction in the number of prisoners, the introduction of community service and non-custodial sentences for juveniles, and the undoubted commitment of the Ministry of Justice to improving prison conditions and to constructing new facilities. But needless to say, there are no votes in prison reform, and it will take years for sufficient resources to improve or replace the totally unacceptable conditions that I have seen in Russia's prisons, which were built to serve the tsars.
	Other outstanding commitments are the reform of the office of the prosecutor general, whose powers of oversight remain far too wide, and of the Federal Security Bureau, the successor to the KGB, which continues to refuse to transfer the running of the Lefotovo detention centre to the Ministry of Justice.
	Last year's report by Human Rights Watch entitled "The Wrongs of Passage" shows that Russia's armed forces continue to fail to exercise a duty of care towards their young conscripts, hundreds of whom commit or attempt suicide each year, and who are subjected to degrading and brutal treatment known as dedovshina, or hazing. I am insisting that the Russian Government and the Duma get a grip on that wholly unacceptable situation.
	Freedom of religion is not yet enjoyed throughout the Russian Federation, as I heard when I met Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious organisations whose churches or prayer houses are regularly attacked or burned, with pastors beaten, meetings disrupted, often without any response from local law enforcement agencies. Regrettably, such campaigns are led or encouraged by the Russian Orthodox Church. I want zero tolerance of such harassment and persecution of people seeking to exercise freedom of worship.
	Russia continues to interfere in the internal affairs of other member states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, contrary to its commitment to abandon a policy of having a zone of special influence, which it calls its "near abroad". The personnel, arsenal and equipment of the 14th Russian army remains in Transnistria, thus contributing to a divided Moldova. Russia maintains an active presence in Abkhazia in Georgia and encourages separatism by issuing dual passports to its citizens. That is not peacekeeping, but a long-standing policy of divide and rule, which is unacceptable in today's Europe.
	Another major commitment remains the signing of the European social charter and the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, while the European charter for regional and minority languages has yet to be ratified. Above all, Russia has not yet abolished the death penalty, which I view as essential before I can recommend de-monitoring.
	I have not referred to the situation in Chechnya because when the Assembly accepted Russia in 1996, it agreed to my amendments providing for a separate monitoring mechanism for Chechnya, which introduced an international dimension into seeking a political solution. Until recently, Lord Judd undertook that onerous task. We continue to make it clear to our Russian colleagues that as long as civilians disappear or are kidnapped and the military act with impunity, without being held to account, we cannot accept the claim that life in Chechnya is returning to normal.
	There is a great deal more in my report to the Assembly, which extends to 90 pages, describing the spheres in which Russia falls short of our standards. I accept that what I have said today is more appropriate to a single-subject Adjournment debate, but I have been unlucky in the ballot for several weeks, so I am grateful to the House for listening to what I have had to say today.
	Given what I saw on the streets of Leningrad 40 years ago, I am sorry that I cannot say that the Russian people today enjoy the same freedoms and rights as most Europeans. For the sake of the Russian people, I hope that the Council of Europe will continue to hold Russia to account for those standards, as I have tried to do, and I look forward to hearing in the Minister's response that that is the Government's approach, too.

Phyllis Starkey: I want to raise an issue of enormous concern to my constituents; it is about our local league one football team, the Milton Keynes Dons. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to rehearse all the old arguments about the events that led to Wimbledon football club relocating to Milton Keynes in late 2003 and taking, in July 2004, the new name of Milton Keynes Dons.
	I accept that some people—possibly some in the House—objected to the move and argued at the time that it set a dangerous precedent. A section of Wimbledon's supporters, including their supporters association, chose to transfer allegiance to the newly formed AFC Wimbledon, which is based in Kingston. Other Wimbledon fans followed the club to Milton Keynes.
	Obviously, my constituents and I take a view of events different from that taken by those who support AFC Wimbledon. Wimbledon FC was without a ground of its own, had been based outside its borough for a decade, and was faced with bankruptcy. The move to Milton Keynes was the only viable option, and it met the long-term aim originally set out by the Milton Keynes development corporation of ensuring that the new city had a Football League professional team of its own. The Football Association sanctioned the move, recognising the unique situation of Wimbledon FC and of Milton Keynes, and also agreed the name change in 2004.
	Milton Keynes Dons is now well established in Milton Keynes, playing at its temporary base of the National Hockey stadium. Crowds are getting larger, reaching about the average for league one, and there is a very active new supporters association. Work has begun on the new purpose-built stadium at Denbigh, and I was pleased to join Pete Winkelman in cutting the first turf there. I am pleased that the team's performance is taking the club away from the relegation zone, as it has remained unbeaten in the past eight games.
	The Milton Keynes Dons supporters association was established in May 2004. It is very active in all things usual for such an association, including holding a very successful appeal for the tsunami in support of a local charity that works in Sri Lanka. The association is anxious to ensure that fans have a strong voice in the plans for the new stadium and for the club's future. Immediately after its formation, it took steps to form a supporters trust. It approached Supporters Direct for help and advice, but unfortunately, that organisation has been extremely unhelpful.
	First, the MK Dons supporters association applied to Supporters Direct for financial assistance in establishing a supporters trust, as it was entitled to do. At the request of Supporters Direct, it clarified with the Football Association that
	"the team who moved to Milton Keynes was officially considered a continuation of Wimbledon FC, and would retain its share in the Football League and its league place."
	However, Supporters Direct refused to fund the MK Dons association on the grounds that it had funded a supporters trust for Wimbledon already. That decision had been taken before the club moved to Milton Keynes, and before AFC Wimbledon was formed. The money involved was spent before the original supporters trust transferred its allegiance from Wimbledon FC to AFC Wimbledon.
	The MK Dons supporters association reluctantly accepted that ruling, but asked instead for practical help from a liaison worker, as is normal when a trust is established. Subsequently, it requested access to the model constitution for trusts and asked Supporters Direct to sponsor an application to the Financial Services Authority for recognition as a supporters trust.
	Through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), a member of the Supporters Direct board, we persuaded that board at least to consider the request. Supporters Direct has made the model rules available, but it has declined to sponsor the MK Dons' application to the FSA, or to sponsor the supporters association's application to join Supporters Direct.
	My constituents and I are extremely angry about what we believe to be the improper and discriminatory decisions made by the Supporters Direct board. Regardless of the events surrounding the move to Milton Keynes, MK Dons is recognised by the FA to be the continuation of Wimbledon FC. The current members of the MK Dons supporters association had no involvement in the club's move to Milton Keynes. They are merely football supporters who wish to exercise, through a properly constituted supporters trust, some control over their club's future.
	I have read the aims of Supporters Direct, and my understanding is that that organisation was established precisely for that purpose—to promote and support the concept of democratic supporter ownership and representation through mutual not-for-profit structures, and to promote football clubs as civic and community institutions. That is what the MK Dons' supporters wanted when they asked to have their own supporters trust.
	Supporters Direct is an industrial and provident society, and its members are the existing supporters trusts. As someone formerly active in the co-operative movement, I know that that movement is well aware of the danger, for co-operative and mutual societies, of becoming exclusive rather than inclusive. I suggest that the members of Supporters Direct should remind themselves of their obligations under the equal opportunities legislation, and of the inclusive nature of a true co-operative and mutual society.
	However, Supporters Direct is in receipt of significant public funding—£325,000 in 2004–05 from Sport England and £90,000 from Sport Scotland. That funding is given on the basis that it should be available to help any supporters who fulfil the eligibility requirements and wish to form a supporters trust. My constituents in Milton Keynes, whose taxes, with everyone else's, are funding Supporters Direct, do not understand why they, uniquely, seem to be barred from gaining access to those funds.
	The reasons given by Supporters Direct for refusing to help MK Dons supporters seem to be based not on a fair and balanced assessment, but on prejudice and persistence in fighting a battle that was lost when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes. Many of those who were most active in founding Wimbledon AFC are involved in Supporters Direct either as board members or on the staff. They are entitled to their views, but they should not abuse their position to discriminate unfairly against my constituents who also want to form a   supporters trust and have a voice in their team's future.
	The Football Association is clear that MK Dons is the successor to Wimbledon FC. Supporters Direct used that to justify not funding a second trust linked to the same club, but then took no action against the original trust, which switched its allegiance to
	"a club other than the one it was originally set up for"—
	that is, Wimbledon AFC—in clear breach of Supporters Direct's rules. What authority does Supporters Direct have to set itself up against the Football Association and other bodies concerned with football?
	My constituents have been extremely patient and have tried to be accommodating, but their patience, and mine, is running out. I hope that at the end of this debate my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism the points that I have made. I shall certainly ask him to intervene to ensure that the public funds given to Supporters Direct are in future allocated fairly and without prejudice and that my constituents do not continue to be discriminated against.

Angela Browning: Two years ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry attempted to come to Cornwall for a holiday. That was an excellent choice, but her plans were thwarted because she found that the transport system into Cornwall was not working as well as it should and she was forced to fly. As a result, she made many public statements in the west country about the Government's commitment to improve the road and rail infrastructure in and out of the south-west. She said:
	"What I know as Secretary of Trade for Trade and Industry is that when you are looking at the South West, getting the transport system right is one of the most important things you can do to help grow new businesses, to help those businesses to be more successful and bring in new investment to the region."
	The Secretary of State is persuasive and speaks, as we all know, in dulcet tones. When I am in a telephone system, having made my sixth selection of number to press with Brahms' second symphony playing in the background and a voice comes on the line and says, "Your call is important to us; we will answer your call as soon as possible," I could swear it is the voice of the Secretary of State. She has a persuasive tone that suggests that if we hang on, our call will definitely be answered. In the south-west we have been hanging on for two years waiting for her support for some of the issues concerning our roads.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is in his place and I know how hard he has worked. With the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), we have made a three-party attempt to persuade the Secretary of State to support, for example, dualling of the A303, which goes through my constituency and is of strategic importance to the whole south-west peninsula.
	Unfortunately, as I have said many times in debates, the Secretary of State for Transport has decided not to dual the A303, so we have only one strategic route in and out of the south-west peninsula—the M5 as far as Exeter and then other roads further into Devon and Cornwall.
	All three Members of Parliament I have mentioned received representations from the Devon and Cornwall business council and we all wrote, in a collective exercise, to get the Secretary of State to support us. We had hoped that she would make representations to the Department for Transport, but disappointingly we can only conclude that she did not press the case for dualling the road, as she had promised in 2003, for the business interests of the south-west.
	Even more worryingly, I recently came across a map of the south-west and the south of England which showed that, according to the Government, there were no roads west of Bristol regarded as of strategic national importance. I tabled parliamentary questions to ask Ministers to list all the trunk roads, which include the A30, the A38 and the M5, which goes on past Bristol down to Exeter. I was astonished to find that a major motorway was not regarded as of national importance. In answer, the Government said that they had divided all the roads in the country into two groups, those of strategic national importance and those of regional importance. As far as the Government are concerned, there is nothing of national importance west of Bristol. They say that the classification is to enable local decision making about those roads in the future and that funding will be allocated at local levels rather than through the Government budget for the Highways Agency.
	The Government's reason sounds persuasive and I can just hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in her dulcet tones, telling us how wonderful that will be. But in reality it means that some of the bigger issues, such as road maintenance for the M5 and some of the structural changes that will be needed, will no longer have the backing of a national Government budget but will come out of the much stretched resources of the region. That will affect various junctions along the M5. For example, at the exit to the services at Exeter, a whole new town is to be built, and the junction will therefore almost certainly need major restructuring and investment. As my political colleague, John Penrose, in Weston-super-Mare, pointed out on hearing the news, junction 21, the Weston-super-Mare turn-off, will almost certainly need more investment.
	I do not know why the Government regard the south-west peninsula as a second-class region of this country, but inward investment and important industries rely on good road infrastructure. That is self-evident in the case of tourism, but we also have successful manufacturing businesses throughout the area. When a company is deciding where to relocate, the Government's view of the strategic importance of the road and rail network is one of its considerations. Inward investment in the south-west will therefore be seriously compromised by the fact that the Government are cutting off the south-west from what they see as the important areas of the country. On this issue, I feel like a grumpy old woman—[Hon. Members: "Never!"] In fact, I am hopping mad about it.
	People in the south-west, and I speak personally about my constituents in Tiverton and Honiton, are hardworking. They come from mainly rural backgrounds—even the towns in my constituency are rural market towns—where people are very self-sufficient and prepared to work hard. Yet somehow, their area is regarded by London as a second-class area with second-class citizens. We have seen the effect that has on some of our indigenous industries, especially farming.
	Farming has taken a real knock in my constituency, which is primarily made up of mixed, small, family farms. There have been changes in the countryside, but in my constituency, the perception is that the Government regard us as second-class citizens, in second-class communities.
	When we were going into the last election, foot and mouth was with us. None of us who lived through that time will forget it, yet four years later we have still received no definitive answers from the Government about the cause of the outbreak and the lessons to be learned. There have been many inquiries, but none of them seems to have been joined up. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I recently had the opportunity to question the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the chief vet and others. The Government say that they believe the index farm, which belonged to Mr. Bobby Waugh, was where animals were fed unprocessed catering waste; but what they have not told us—and I have pressed them on this in the Committee recently—is that it was not simply the fact that animals on that farm were fed unprocessed waste but that such waste was kept on the farm at all. It is illegal to have unprocessed food on a farm, yet recently the DEFRA permanent secretary wrote to the national co-ordinator of Associated Swill Users:
	"Some unprocessed catering waste was held temporarily in barrels on a hard standing in front of Burnside Farm, before being removed for processing."
	If we are to learn lessons from the last outbreak of foot and mouth, it is important to identify where and why it broke out. The consequences of another outbreak, in slaughter and further losses in the rural economy, will not just be felt in pound note terms; the emotional stress of the farming community cannot be quantified.
	I want the Government to treat rural communities and farming areas such as mine more seriously and not take them for granted, discarding them as second-class citizens or areas. I was not born in Devon. I have lived there for only 35 years so I am not local yet, but the people of Devon are the salt of the earth. They make this country what it is. They believe in fair play and in straight talking—sometimes their straight talking is very straight indeed. They want to know that in Parliament, whoever is in power, they will receive a fair deal and that they will get straight answers to their questions. They want to feel that our democracy will treat them fairly and not discard them.
	As we end this term of Parliament and, I hope, go into a general election, I make this plea. The rural communities of this country must change—we all understand that—but equally the Government of the day must understand that rural and urban communities are different. Rural communities have sound values and their people are independent-minded. Those people make me proud to represent them and I hope that the Government, too, will be proud of our rural communities and make sure that they get fair play.

Julia Drown: This is my last opportunity to address this Parliament. I am proud to represent both rural and urban communities and I must say that I see no great distinction as I move from one to the other. There are different flavours and different policy aspects and it is important that policy be rural-proofed, but I am pleased that on so many of the issues that I have raised on behalf of my constituents there is consistency of view.
	People in the rural and urban communities of my constituency were pleased that I lobbied successfully for a new hospital in Swindon, which has modern facilities and more beds than the old one, and is able to treat many more patients. Next month, we will see the opening of our treatment centre, which can accommodate a further 128 beds and five operating theatres, so we can hope for even more improvement in the town's health services.
	I am also pleased to have lobbied successfully to get money into our schools, including the replacement of the wartime huts in which our pupils previously had to learn their lessons; instead, they are now in modern accommodation. I have also been successful in lobbying the Government on some of the crime and antisocial behaviour issues that my constituents have raised with me. What has happened in Wiltshire is a good story. It is now the safest county in the country, and I pay tribute to the work of our police force. We have had a number of community support officers because of Government investment, and street wardens have made an enormous difference to the town as well.
	All those people working together have been able to tackle crime. From April to December last year, we saw crime overall drop by more than 5 per cent. and a 1 per cent. increase in the detection rate. Robberies are down by about 13 per cent.—burglaries similarly—and violent crime has been reduced by 2 per cent. That is a comfort to my constituents. Although the perception is often that crime is still increasing, the reality is the other way round. Some of our legislation on antisocial behaviour is incredibly important in getting across the message that, if the community works together, we can tackle crime and make us all feel safer.
	I have had to pursue in Parliament antisocial behaviour issues associated with Travellers. I am pleased that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 includes legislation to deal with those issues and that additional stop notices have been introduced this month. Central Swindon has a problem with prostitution, and again, antisocial behaviour orders have given the local community and the local authority, with the police, the power to improve neighbourhoods.
	On general antisocial behaviour issues, I am pleased that, in the past couple of weeks, an interim antisocial behaviour order on a youth in Freshbook in my constituency has been confirmed as a two-year order. It was great to see local residents coming out to talk to the local newspaper and saying, "The interim order has made an enormous difference to our lives." Local publicans are saying that people can walk out without fear of intimidation and that they can bring back a sense of community. That makes a real difference to the quality of people's lives across the board—young and old—and I congratulate the Government on responding to pressure from Back Benchers to introduce that legislation.
	Our understanding of the community contrasts strongly with some Conservatives' activities, certainly on the ground in Swindon, where the local council has recently produced a budget in which there are massive cuts to our voluntary sector. Those involved say that they support the voluntary sector, yet they withdraw grants of £50,000 to advice points, saying, "Oh, there is a duplication of provision," when there are massive waiting lists for advice. Those advice points serve the most disadvantaged people in our community and people absolutely depend on them to deal with financial and housing problems. I suspect that, if those places really do close down, it will end up costing the council more in the long run. So there is a contrast between what we have done and how we have responded to communities and what we have seen from the Conservatives.
	As this is my last chance to comment on some issues, I particularly want to look at some of the ways in which we work in the House, because a lot of what we do we do inefficiently. Although I appreciate and support all the work of the Modernisation Committee, much more needs to be done if we are to make our democracy more effective, to get the public to relate better to Parliament, to reduce the cost of Parliament and to improve MPs' lives, which is particularly important because, if we improve the job of being an MP, we can get more of the very best people in the country to become MPs. That is in itself important for democracy.
	I know that people straightaway talk about the hours of the House, which are important. There is a huge danger, because it is always easy to vote for more hours of debating time, but hard to ask for them to be reduced so that we can spend time more efficiently. However, we clearly could do that.
	There have been more than 1,200 Divisions during this Parliament, but we could have the predicted the results of virtually all of them before they were held. [Interruption.] Yes, all of them, except for a few. However, most of us have been here to vote in those Divisions. Anyone who has not taken part in a debate has had to stop what they have been doing—perhaps rudely having to say goodbye to constituents whom they have been seeing—to traipse over here and go through the Lobby. Some people might say that we are sent here to vote, but we could vote electronically. As happens in some councils, we could tell Mr. Speaker before a debate whether we wanted to abstain or vote against our party line. We could have a named vote, if that were needed.
	I calculate that each of us wastes an average of 15 minutes during each Division. An average 436 Members have voted in each of those 1,200 Divisions, so an average of three weeks of work time is wasted for each Division. So far, this Parliament has wasted 70 years of work time voting. If Ministers and Members had voted efficiently, we could have spent that time on our constituents, or even with our families. We all say that families are important, so we could improve Westminster and make life more sensible. We have each wasted an average of eight weeks of time during Divisions that we could have spent better.
	I support the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about Prime Minister's Question Time. It is not a useful addition to our democracy. It is no wonder that seeing that sparring match turns many young people off, so I would like that to be addressed too.
	It is daft that we are not allowed to sit and work in the Chamber while other people are speaking. The idea that Members cannot do a bit of work or read while listening to a debate is wrong. We all have to do that during our lives because we all have too much to do, so the problem should be addressed.
	We still have not done anything significant on child care. We have more bars than I have cared to find out during my time here, and we have restaurants, a hairdressers and a gym. Yes, there are about 10,000 people working in Westminster, so why not have those facilities; but should we not address the question of nurseries, too?
	During debates on modernisation, I have always been identified as the breastfeeding MP because I have rightly promoted breastfeeding. It is good for mums and good for babies. I thank Mr. Speaker for providing facilities for breastfeeding mums, but there is no reason why we should not be more positive about breastfeeding. One million babies throughout the world die every year because of low breastfeeding rates, so we should do more to promote it. It is ludicrous that members of the public cannot sit in the Gallery behind that screen and breastfeed. What problem would it cause?
	It was sad for democracy that a decision was made to ban breastfeeding from the Committees of the House. Every single professional organisation wrote in to say that breastfeeding should be allowed and the majority of Members made it clear that they supported it by signing early-day motions. If all those people support breastfeeding, why not go ahead and allow it?
	There seems to be a sensitivity to the effect that if we change things in the House, it will somehow fall apart and destroy itself. We should be more willing to experiment and relax. We are too defensive. If we cannot properly debate and decide things in the mother of Parliaments on the basis of professional advice and what most people want, it is a sad day for democracy. Mr. Speaker himself said to me, "Julia, you should just have gone ahead and done it. You shouldn't have asked." That is crazy—I do not want to put the staff of the Serjeant at Arms in an embarrassing position. We should be able to listen to professional organisations and do what is right. I remember Tony Benn saying to me, "Julia, the only way to get a crèche in this place is to go round, get nice big A4 posters, shove them on the front of a bar and turn it into a nursery. That's the only way you're going to get it done." I look to hon. Members in the next Parliament to do better and achieve what we should be able to do: talk about such matters and vote on them.
	I have been pleased to represent South Swindon, which is a fine place in which to live. All hon. Members are invited to an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall in the parliamentary week starting 4 April at which Swindon Dance will exhibit its fantastic work. I am grateful to all my constituents, who have thanked me and pointed out how much we have been able to achieve by working with activists in many organisations throughout the town. I am pleased to have done that work, and my constituents have noticed the difference between a hard-working Labour MP and an inactive Tory MP who did nothing for the town. I thank activists and volunteers in the Labour party and other groups, and I also thank my staff. Democracy is wonderful, but it needs to improve in this country. I am pleased to have played my part in it—and you never know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in future, I may be back.

Alistair Burt: I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said, but her contribution demonstrates the value of these Adjournment debates and the way in which we can raise many different things at the end of term. I was disappointed, however, that she had to end on a rather unpleasant note. Many of us worked with her predecessor and thought well of him, and a generous comment at the end of her speech might have served her rather better in the House.
	My constituents would like four issues to be aired before this Session is completed. I shall explain the first briefly, then try to lump the remaining three together. May I make a plea to Ministers on behalf of my constituents to tackle the refitting of the St. Pancras Thameslink rail terminal? For 35 weeks, commuters from Bedford travelling on the Thameslink midlands main line into St. Pancras have endured without complaint what they call "the blockade". Thameslink used to run right through the centre of town, and people could travel from Bedford to Brighton, but they have been prevented from doing so by the works at the new Eurostar terminal at St. Pancras. By and large, the works seem to have gone well, but commuters have been told that the Thameslink station, which should have been completed with the rest of the terminal by June 2007, will not be ready then.
	That is a tragedy, as it would prevent interchanges between the Thameslink line and European services, between the proposed Olympic service to east London and the Midland Main line, and with the Great Northern suburban services. It is like building a motorway without junctions. Would the Deputy Leader of the House kindly talk to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who is responsible for rail transport, to see whether we can secure a commitment to complete that work? In commuters' minds, the issue is coloured by their concerns about Thameslink 2000, which is now known as Thameslink 3000, because it has simply not happened. Completion would be a gesture of good will towards commuters, who pay over the odds for fares with rises that exceed inflation. Thameslink makes a contribution with a premium payment to the Strategic Rail Authority, so there is no shortage of cash and completion would be a great help. I am grateful to Andrew Long of the Bedford Commuters Association for the support and information that he has provided.
	I shall group the next three items together, and would be grateful for the assistance of the House in helping me to create an interactive event. Imagine that we are presented with a form from Her Majesty's Government for the new citizenship test, albeit one at an advanced level. We are asked what we would do in three situations and in which one we would expect the Government to intervene. The three situations arise in my constituency, but they could occur elsewhere. First, situation A: Swineshead is a village in the north of my constituency. It does not have any shops, and it no longer has a village pub, but it does have a village hall which, along with the church, is the only place where people can gather in large numbers. Twice a month, the village hall provides an opportunity for people to get together and use its bar, which makes modest profits of £300 to £400 a year. Those profits are used for the benefit of the village to assist with small repairs and so on. The village hall and the village pay £30 every three years for the licence or £10 a year. Under the Licensing Act 2003, there will be a charge of £190 for the transfer to the new system, followed by a regular charge of £150 a year. That is 15 times the current charge—money that will be taken out of the modest profits and cannot be used for village purposes. It is a payment to bureaucracy resulting from the new Licensing Act. Would the Government intervene to assist that village in retaining its funds for village purposes?
	The second situation concerns the multiple sclerosis therapy centre in Bedford, which serves Bedfordshire. It is one of 36 centres in England and Wales. They are all voluntary, run for charitable purposes and staffed by volunteers. A couple of years ago the centres came under the Healthcare Commission for inspection. They did not mind. They had previously been self-regulated, but they accepted the need for regulation and inspection. Even so, some odd requirements were added—for instance, the centre in Bedford is required to have a protocol for what happens when the toilet rolls run out. For 20 years the centre was run without that, but we will let it pass because the centre is letting it pass.
	The inspection charge at first and for this year is £1,080. This year it is proposed to increase it by 45 per cent., and by 2008 the charge will be £4,000 a year. That is what the Healthcare Commission has been told to charge, because it must make ends meet and be self-financing, by order of the Government. The voluntary centre says that the money is being taken out of the funds used to provide for patients and their friends, and it is money that can be raised only by volunteers standing on a street corner and shaking a tin. Would the Government intervene to prevent that 300 per cent. increase in charges, to help multiple sclerosis sufferers and their families?
	Or take situation C—Mid Bedfordshire district council, a low-charging district council. It charges the 10th lowest rates out of the 238 district councils in England and Wales—£90.18 per year is a typical charge. The council is under pressure to provide more services and works closely with the Government. It identified £2.4 million worth of savings over the past three years, but this year it must increase its charges by 13.3 per cent., which equates to £1 per month.
	I have put to the House three situations, A, B and C. Will the Government intervene in situation A, where villages are asked to pay more money for licensing bureaucracy? Will the Government intervene in situation B, where multiple sclerosis centres face an increase of 300 per cent. in their inspection charges for the Government inspector? Or will the Government intervene in situation C, in order to safeguard the ratepayer from a rise of £1 per month from a district council?
	I know the answer: it is situation C, where the Government have already decided to intervene and are rate-capping Mid Bedfordshire district council for the appalling crime of charging an extra £1 per month on its council tax in the coming year. They leave aside the several hundred per cent. increase in licensing charges for Swineshead village hall. They are not interested in the 300 per cent. increase in inspection costs for the multiple sclerosis centre. No, they have decided to bring the might of Whitehall to bear, and have capped Mid Bedfordshire district council for charging an extra £1 a month.
	Yesterday in the Chamber I was very cross with the Minister for Local and Regional Government. I spoke and behaved in a way that I do not normally do, because I am a moderate sort of chap, as the Whip, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), knows full well from our frequent games of football together. Today I am not cross. I just find it ridiculous. That is why I present the three situations to the House and ask what we would do, were we the Government. Which one would we choose to intervene in?
	What does the choice tell us? It tells us that the Government have lost their compass—their sense of proportion. Village halls across Britain face increases of the sort that I described. It seems to them nonsense that they should needlessly have to pay more to a licensing authority—money that would otherwise be used in the village for communal purposes. Why can they not be relieved of the burden?
	Multiple sclerosis therapy centres are providing a free service to the national health service, doing work and raising their own money, with volunteers standing on street corners, going to shopping centres and running bring and buy events. If they downed tools and did not do that, who would pick up the responsibility? To be facing the same inspection charges as a BUPA therapy centre may face is nonsense, but the Government have not listened.
	Two months ago, I and my constituents in Swineshead wrote to the Government to get an answer on the licensing. We have not heard anything. The multiple sclerosis centres have written to the Minister. They have had an answer but no assistance. Mid Bedfordshire district council has certainly heard from the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who has decided to cap it for £1 a month.
	I was a member of a London local authority in 1982. I know what rate capping was designed to do. Businesses were driven out of London boroughs because of the high rate increases that were introduced by a few very high-spending councils. We all know that the world is different now. Labour is in government because the loony left was dealt with. That was what the power of rate capping—the power of this place to intervene in local democracy—was about. It was not about dealing with the Mid Bedfordshires of this country or about dealing with low-charging authorities spending an extra £1 a month but finding that converted into a percentage that makes the Government step in and use their power. It shows that the Government have lost their sense of proportion, lost their moral competence and lost the plot.
	I leave those questions hanging. What would hon. Members do if they were facing the citizenship test? Most of us in the Chamber would find a better answer than situation C. I appeal to the Minister—I know that he will have only a short time to wind up the debate—to answer the question: why, of the three situations, is only one attracting direct Government intervention? Will he please go to his colleagues and ask them to deal with the other two on behalf of the therapy centres and village halls around the country, not least because of the district councils that are doing their best and facing that ridiculous power of capping for a very small degree of hurt?

Mike Hall: May I start by referring to the 1992 general election? If the House will bear with me, it will see the point that I am trying to make. My agent was called Tom Sherrett and he was always against campaign visits. I eventually persuaded him to allow me to have a campaign visit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) came along. We had a fantastic campaign visit and, a week later, I won with a grand majority of 191. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who will both stand down at the general election when it is called, for their help during the 1992 election and for their contribution to the workings of the House since then. I wish them both well in whatever life form they find themselves in after Westminster.
	I want to raise with the Deputy Leader of the House a number of issues which are constituency-related but on which the Government may be able to offer some help. For the past two years, an event called Thundersprint has taken place in Northwich town centre in my constituency. It is a great razzmatazz, a fantastic spectacle where people from across the country demonstrate their prowess on motorbikes, which can be vintage bikes or state-of-the-art formula 1 racing bikes.
	Because of the way the current law is worded, the event has to take place on a car park. Last year, 60,000 people attended Northwich town centre to witness that spectacle. This year, on 8 May, when I hope to be the guest of honour, the event will probably attract up to 100,000 people.
	We have to modify the way in which the event takes place because Northwich town centre is being stabilised. I have mentioned it in the House before. The town centre is built over four disused salt mines, which are in danger of collapse. A Government-funded project of £32 million is starting to stabilise the town centre. We are having to organise the Thundersprint event around the obstacles that the stabilisation project has placed in the car park.
	A far better solution, which would be safer for cyclists, for spectators and for everyone else involved, would be to allow the event to take place on the highway. Of course, we would have to close it for a few hours on the Saturday and Sunday for the event to take place, but it would be far better. I was heartened when on 6 July last year Regent street, here in the capital, was closed so that Formula 1 cars could be demonstrated on the highway, one after the other, racing up and down the street, and then taking part in a grand parade. If it is possible for Formula 1 cars to do that on one of the main roads of the capital, why cannot the same be done over 500 m on Barons Quay road in Northwich town centre? I have raised that issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and with the Secretary of State for Transport, and even at this late stage I am hopeful that they will be able to bring forward a solution that will allow that fantastic event to take place and thousands of people to come to Northwich town to enjoy themselves.
	I turn to the Telecommunications Act 1984. I had not been aware that that Act allows telecommunications operators the statutory right to have access to erect their equipment on adopted highways. I do not pretend that they actually put their masts in the roadway, but one operator proposes to put a telecommunications mast on a grass verge that is part of the adopted highway in the Leftwich estate in my constituency. It wants to erect a 12 m parallel column with three 2G/3G dual-band antennas within a GRP shroud—whatever that may be—and radio equipment and ancillary development. The grass verge is less than 1 m wide and is next to a bus stop and a telephone box. That is totally inappropriate, but under the 1984 Act the highways authority does not have the right to object to that access, nor even to charge the telecommunications company rent for the land that it uses. Everybody on the Leftwich estate knows that this is a barmy idea, and fortunately, on Tuesday night Vale Royal borough council rejected the planning application for this telephone communications equipment to be sited there. I pay tribute to my friend and constituent, Allan Lamb, who presented a passionate case on why that application should be refused. The residents of Leftwich will be very relieved about that.
	Hon. Members will not know this, but a couple of weeks ago, Rebecca Watts, a baby girl under two years old, died from the very rare acute myeloid leukaemia, which normally affects much older people, usually aged over 50. To make it worse, exactly 12 months ago another baby girl aged under two died of the same condition in the street next door. There was already grave concern about public health among people on the Leftwich estate, and the last thing that they wanted or needed was the erection of a telecommunications mast in the green spaces in their area and the creation of further public health fears. I can report to the House that Central Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency and Vale Royal borough council are doing their level best to look into the epidemiology surrounding those two incidences of acute myeloid leukaemia to see whether they are connected and whether a cause can be found. Those agencies are fully committed to keeping my constituents in the Leftwich area of Northwich fully informed of developments, and I am working closely with them to make sure that my constituents are given the reassurances that they want.
	I want to move on to another planning issue, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction. On 30 June last year, Vale Royal borough council granted temporary planning permission for an anemometer on Aston Grange farm, which is in one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency. We objected to the application more than 12 months ago because an anemometer measures the power of wind, and we saw it as a precursor to a planning application for a wind farm, which would despoil one of the most beautiful rural parts of my constituency in the Weaver valley. Sadly, our fears have come true because Tegni Cymru, the Welsh private electricity company installing the anemometer, has put forward proposals to place four 125-m-high wind turbines on Aston Grange farm. I am determined that we must fight the application when it comes forward, because it would despoil the most beautiful part of my constituency, be a blot on the landscape and represent the loss of a superb visual amenity. Having fought the proposals by Network Rail and the National Grid Company to put a substation and trackside feeder station on the green belt in Weaverham and Acton Bridge in my constituency, I will do all that I can to ensure that that planning application goes no further forward.
	I now want to deal with a completely different issue: Cheshire county council's ill-thought-out proposals to slash the salaries of teaching assistants in my constituency. The council has introduced proposals that will mean that teaching assistants will see their pay cut by £2,000 per year, or £40 a week, and that other professionals in the county council area will lose up to £6,000 a year. The county council introduced those cuts as part of its single-status proposals, and the House will not be surprised to know that Unison has rejected the proposals outright because of the effect that they would have on teaching assistants.
	There are teaching assistants in every part of my constituency, and the county council is trying to say that they are part-time employees who work only 32 hours a week and not during school holidays. It is clear that the county council does not value the work that they do, so schools such as the Russett special school in Weaverham will lose its teaching assistant, who will look elsewhere for employment because she cannot afford to take the cut in wages that the county council proposes. There are 1,900 teaching assistants in my constituency. I would like the county council to look again at the proposal, and value the work that the assistants do throughout the county to improve education in my constituency.
	In the time that I have left, I want to mention the need for a new crossing over the River Mersey. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House would be surprised if I did not raise that issue—I have done so on a number of occasions. If we are to develop the full economic potential of the north-west and deal with the severe congestion in the borough of Halton, we need a second crossing over the River Mersey—we need the new Mersey gateway.
	Halton borough council, together with Liverpool city council, Knowsley metropolitan borough council, Warrington borough council and Cheshire county council, local businesses and the Northwest Development Agency have all said that a second crossing is essential to the north-west. The documentation and paperwork have already been submitted to the Department for Transport, and we are eagerly awaiting an announcement. I hope that one can come soon. I am not exercised by the fact that we might not have a lot of time after Easter, but the crossing is something that we need.
	In conclusion, I want to refer to the Riversdale footbridge across the Weaver navigation in the Northwich part of my constituency. In November, British Waterways, which is responsible for the footbridge, closed it without any consultation, announcement or precursor on the health and safety ground that it was structurally unsafe. Ever since, I have been pressing British Waterways to try to resolve the problem. The footbridge is an integral part of the footpath networks around Northwich town centre, and it is part of one of the safe routes to Sir John Deane's sixth form college, primary schools and other schools in the area. It is essential that the footbridge opens.
	British Waterways says that it has no statutory responsibility to open the footbridge and does not have the £500,000 needed to carry out the repairs. I urge British Waterways, and Cheshire county council as the highways authority, to come forward with a solution that sees the bridge opened at the earliest opportunity.

Richard Allan: It feels like only yesterday that I was standing here making my maiden speech, and in parliamentary terms it was, as it was only eight years ago. However, like other hon. Members who have spoken today, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my final speech, as I am also planning my escape at the next election. I have the fake passport printed and the tunnel dug; I am just waiting for the balloon to go up.
	I would like to pay a slightly warmer tribute to my Conservative predecessor than I did in my maiden speech, as I have got to know him better since then. That has happened because he is a prominent member of the local synagogue in Sheffield, which has a good civic service every year at which it raises funds for the hospital. As he was a prominent member, I kept away for the first few years, thinking that that was polite, until it was made clear to me that my absence had been noted and I would be very welcome.
	I did not expect that, the first time that I turned up, I would be sat next to Sir Irvine Patnick. He leant over to me and explained that the organisers had thought that, as the current and previous MP, we would have lots in common and would like to chat to each other, ignoring the fact that we had had a fairly intense election campaign and that there were party differences between us. He was brilliant about it, and we have met each other every year since. I pay tribute to the work that he did in his decade as MP for Sheffield, Hallam.
	I want to raise a couple of issues that have remained on my agenda, and that I want to leave on the Government's agenda, as I would feel guilty for not doing so if I do not get another opportunity. They are quite different issues.
	The first relates to the comments made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) about the difficulties of dealing with European Union legislation. Members might be aware that I have spent a lot of time in the House dealing with information technology issues. The plain fact is that most of the issues with which we deal in relation to information technology are proposals and directives emanating from the European Commission. That is entirely sensible—very few issues relating to telecommunications or the internet can be dealt with sensibly at a national level, and they are properly dealt with at European Union level. Indeed, if there is any complaint to be made, it is that we cannot involve countries such as the United States, Russia and China in a common decision-making framework.
	Our ability to deal with European Union legislation, however, has been almost inversely proportionate to its importance and significance. We deal with it in funny little Committees, of which most people are not aware, in obscure parts of the Palace of Westminster. It rarely comes to us for consideration at a time when we can influence it; it comes to us when the directive has been signed, sealed and delivered and we are simply translating it into UK law.
	My political direction might be different from that of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East and some of his colleagues, in that I think that the European Union method of decision making is appropriate for many of the matters with which I have been dealing. There is a big gap in scrutiny, however, and I would be unhesitating in my criticism of a failure to scrutinise and the potential negative impact that that has on the democratic system in the United Kingdom.
	The Government could deal with this issue: it relates essentially to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. The Executive goes to European Councils, and in the form of the Minister, signs up to all the directives at the point at which they can be influenced. In the UK parliamentary system, however, the Executive chooses not to come to Parliament and debate openly the choices that it will make when it goes to the Council. It chooses to keep that in its own private domain. Plenty of other European countries, particularly Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, choose not to do that, and Ministers who are going to the European Council to sign up to important measures engage with their Parliaments at a time when the directives are still potentially changeable.
	On the current agenda, there is an important technical directive on computer-implemented inventions, on which Members on both sides of the House will have been lobbied under the banner headline of software patents. That directive is very significant for a very large number of people in the IT industry. It is a contentious matter of great interest to many people, and yet there have been attempts to deal with the Commission's proposals through the Council of Agriculture Ministers and all sorts of other inappropriate parts of the European Commission machinery. I hope that the Minister will be able to examine now and in the future how such a directive—on which hundreds of thousands of letters will have been written from across the United Kingdom to both MPs and MEPs—can be dealt with in the House with the kind of prominence that it deserves, rather than being in the Executive's private domain.
	We have had a good tour around England today, with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) describing the Government's "League of Gentlemen" style of policy for roads in the west country, where local roads are only for local people. In relation to the second issue that I want to raise, I want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and take us further afield: in particular, to the republic of Colombia in Latin America, a country in which I have taken an interest as a Member of Parliament.
	I sought a debate on Colombia, unsuccessfully, in recent months, following a visit there in September last year. I want to put on record my thanks to the staff of the embassy in Bogota, particularly Susan Le Jeune, and the ambassador, Tom Duggin, to whom reference has been made, who organised an excellent visit for me. I was given the opportunity of sitting in on one of the meetings that the President of Colombia holds every Saturday, in locations around the country. He sits in a village hall or equivalent for seven hours, answering questions from the ordinary public about the drains, the state of the local roads and so on. He drags half his Cabinet out with him every Saturday—I witnessed the 70th such meeting in two years.
	It was a busman's holiday for a Lib Dem to go off and watch a kind of town hall meeting, but it might be a good idea for the UK Government to emulate that, with the leader of the country in the chair listening to the concerns of ordinary people in that way. We have our surgeries, of course, but the Colombian President has taken access for ordinary people to the nth degree.
	I had a fantastic visit. It demonstrated the importance of the Colombians' problems, many of which are directly related to activities in other countries including our own. The Colombian Government claimed success recently in reducing the murder rate to just over 20,000 a year, and that is in a country smaller than the United Kingdom. There are hundreds of kidnappings every year, and significant human rights abuses are perpetrated by all sides. All the illegal armed activists in the conflict, paramilitaries and guerrillas, are responsible for serious abuses of that kind, fuelled by narco-trafficking. Drug money goes into Colombia from countries including our own. There are drug production industries which use precursor chemicals, again from European countries—from most countries that have chemicals industries. There is more that we could do about that.
	I want to raise a couple of issues that will, I think, continue to be valid issues for the Foreign Office to raise. A number of individuals have recently been targeted. It is shocking, having visited a country and met people who are involved in human rights organisations, to hear a little later that other people have turned up at their door and told them that unless they cease their activities they will be killed. I want particularly to mention Yolanda Becerra of the organisation Feminina Popular in Barrancabermeja. I visited her. She does tremendous work in promoting the rights of women in particular, but has been subjected to paramilitary threats recently. I think that the UK Government have a role to play in making requests of other Governments, and that in this instance they should request the Colombian Government to ensure that people like Yolanda Becerra can operate with some security.
	The other serious human rights crisis in Colombia recently was the murder of a group of leading activists in a peace community called San José de Apartado, which has been trying to stay out of the conflict. Armed people have gone in—there are suggestions that they are associated with the Colombian military—killed a number of leading activists and left the whole region in terror. That is another issue that the UK Government could raise with the Colombian authorities.
	Other Members have spoken of the importance of ensuring that people, especially young people, remain engaged in politics. I agree. It is one of the major challenges for us, and I think that the key word is relevance. We must not let this place become a sort of magic circle using its own language and doing things in ways that people outside simply do not understand, because that creates a barrier. It may be comfortable for us, and make us feel somehow special or different, but it gives people out there a sense of difference that they do not experience in a positive way. Our connections with the outside world are all-important. There is, or should be, a revolving door between ordinary people and this place. We should always remember that we are representing people out there rather than the class of politicians as a whole.
	I intend to use the revolving door on the way out. Others will come in. I hope that the House will be positive about the new skills and experience that others will bring here, and take advantage of them to continue the process of modernisation that has been mentioned today. There is always more that we can learn, and more that we can do to improve the workings of the House. In general terms, the opportunity that I have had is one that I have very much appreciated.

John Cryer: I think that seven Members speaking in the debate are retiring at the general election. I pay tribute to them all. I know that they will all be missed, especially my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). They are not immediate but fairly close neighbours of mine, two of our constituencies being in Essex and the other in east London.
	The opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham reminded me for some reason of a story I heard recently about Clement Attlee. When he reached the age of 80, he was asked what it was like. He replied, "Well, it's better than the alternative."
	Let me now continue with whingeing gits day, as I affectionately refer to these Adjournment debates. Like most Members, I have a number of constituency issues to raise. The first relates to the channel tunnel rail link, which runs through the south of my constituency, through Rainham. The Bill that paved the way for the link took many months to complete its passage in the House, and that is part of the problem with which a number of my constituents are living today. A baffle has been erected between the houses of some of my constituents and the new channel tunnel rail link, but, between the baffle and the houses is a smaller railway line used by c2c on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, which goes through my constituency and ends in that of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. The problem is that the noise from the smaller, suburban line reverberates off the baffle. The noise level has actually got worse since the baffle was erected.
	Union Rail, the main contractor, has refused to do anything about this; it has refused to change the design and structure of the baffle. The problem originated in this place, in that these issues were not properly addressed when the Bill to create the channel tunnel rail link was going through Parliament—there should have been specific measures in the Bill on how these baffles were to be constructed—but Union Rail is now being obstructive about the problem.
	The issue of mobile phone masts has already come up today. This is an issue that many of us deal with on a regular basis, and I have recently been involved in two campaigns against such masts. I see that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is in his place. He regularly complains about having to deal with these unplanned erections, as they have been called. That is very worrying for him, and very worrying for the rest of us.
	As I was saying, I have recently been involved in the defeat of two plans for mobile phone masts, and before that I was involved in four or five other successful campaigns. It is convenient to use the Stewart report in this context. It forms the basis of most of these campaigns, and I am sure that every hon. Member here today is familiar with it. It is very handy, but we have all come across examples of plans that have been submitted to a local authority that the authority finds difficult to turn down despite local popular pressure.
	There have been a couple of private Members' Bills on this issue, but we should consider the possibility of strengthening our planning law and guidance, to enable   local authorities to resist these masts more comprehensively. There has already been some strengthening of the planning guidance on the back of the Stewart report, which is a very good piece of work. It was brought out under difficult circumstances, because the exact consequences of the masts are not yet known and probably will not be known for some years. Nevertheless, we should be looking at strengthening the planning legislation. We should actually return to the pre-1980s situation. In the 1980s, the Tory Government weakened our planning legislation to allow big companies to ride into towns and more or less throw up whatever they wanted to. We need to return to a situation in which local authorities have more power.
	I turn to an even more parochial issue. One of the problems that I have with my council, the London borough of Havering—which, naturally, is Tory-controlled—is that it is building up large cash reserves while turning down every request for traffic calming measures, crossings and so on. In my constituency, there are one or two examples of areas that badly need such schemes because the traffic travels very fast and is becoming dangerous. The main one that springs to mind is Newton's corner, in Rainham, where a crossing—preferably a pelican crossing—is badly needed. I have been trying to persuade the local authority to put one in for the past three or four years, but it keeps turning the proposal down while amassing great reserves of cash.
	The next issue that I should like to raise is the proposed motocross track in north Rainham in my constituency. It is planned to construct it on land largely owned by the Thames Chase community forest, an area that is being turned over to cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders and on which thousands of trees are being planted. Yet, in the middle of it, there is an attempt to put a great big cyclocross track. This would ruin the area, which is also very close to housing. Two plans have already been turned down, but I suspect that the applicants will come back. They will either appeal or come back with a third plan, and they will keep going until they imagine that they have got what they want. My main objection is to the noise disturbance, and evidence presented by the applicant seeking to argue that that issue has been addressed and will not be a problem might have convinced my local authority, but it has not convinced me.
	All-postal ballots are a local and national issue, and they have been discussed a great deal, including in a series of Question Times on the Floor of the House. My borough was a pilot area for an all-postal ballot in the last local elections, and I am convinced that those elections resulted in at least some questionable activities. All-postal ballots are open to all sorts of abuses, and the House must send out a message to anyone who stands as a candidate at the next general election that anyone who takes part in fraud will be dealt with very severely. For my part, because of my past experience, details of which I have sent to the Electoral Commission, I shall be watching the situation extremely carefully, and if I discover anyone taking part in any suspected fraud, I will have no hesitation in putting the evidence before the police.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East referred to the plummeting numbers of people, particularly young people, taking part in elections. At the last election, it was down to 58 per cent., although I agree that that is not because of a lack of interest in politics. I visit on average a school a week in my constituency and I find that people as young as nine and 10 are a lot more interested in politics than I probably was at their age, but that does not translate into an interest in party politics. I suspect that that is because there is a fairly undefined but general feeling that we have lost the ability to influence our destiny, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the EU has played a part in that. If we go down the path that some hon. Members want to go down of joining the euro so that we lose control over interest rates, we will then lose some control over taxation because we cannot run a single currency without a single tax-gathering mechanism, and that is mentioned in the Maastricht treaty.
	Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was told by the European Commission to cut £10 billion from public spending, as though that had anything to do with it. He said no and told it to get lost and it could do nothing about it. But if that happened after we hadsigned up to the constitution, the European Commission could take the Chancellor and the British Government to the European Court of Justice, and as sure as eggs is eggs the Court would rule in favour of the Commission, as it does year in, year out.
	If we went down that path, we would have to go to the electorate and apologise for any problems that arose, whether they were the result of a crisis in public spending or an economic crisis, but we would have handed over all the levers of economic power to unelected and unaccountable people in Brussels or Frankfurt. How would people react? They would not say, "Oh, brilliant. We will take part in the election." They would say, "Well, stuff the mainstream. We will move to the fringes." The number of people voting would plummet even further than it already has, and increasing numbers of people would move to the fringes, particularly the far right. That is my suspicion, and I have a vested interest in this because I have been a lifelong anti-racist, and I can see a nationalistic backlash resulting from going down the path of the EU straitjacket.
	With that, I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all right hon. and hon. Members and the staff of the House a happy Easter.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, even though his father used to keep me up late at night in the early 1990s. I forgive him for that and I wish him well. I am particularly pleased to follow him because I agree with what he said about the euro. If we lose the pound and move to the euro, that will sound the death knell to Britain's sovereignty, so I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on that. Europe remains one of the defining issues. In Essex it will be a key issue in the general election, and I hope that no one is seduced to vote for the UK Independence party, which would betray Britain. I see hon. Members agreeing with their smiles and nods.
	Having got that off my chest, let me return to the real debate this afternoon and go straight to the key subject of hospice funding. This country's funding of adult hospices from Government sources stands at about 20 per cent. or a little lower, yet children's hospices are funded at a miserly rate of 5 per cent. That is far too low. Yet set against the 1.8 per cent. that Little Haven hospice in my constituency received from Government funding last year, the average 5 per cent. for children's hospices looks downright generous. I shall now look at the Minister and establish eye contact with him—I know that he expects me to raise this matter, as I always do. He has his answers written down and I hope that included in them, will be an undertaking to tackle the strategic health authority in Essex and the primary care trust to ensure that for this year and next, Little Haven receives at least the average 5 per cent. funding that other children's hospices receive.
	Depriving children's hospices of reasonable funding is to betray the wonderful people, the dedicated staff, who work in them, and the volunteers who raise money for them. Very much included among those are the three Conservative clubs in Castle Point—the Hadleigh club, the Benfleet club, where I shall go immediately after this debate, and the Canvey club. I know that the Minister is listening; he is a jolly good man. Finally, I want to say that I am proud to be a Conservative on this issue, as my party's policy is for the Government to fund both children's and adult hospices at the rate of 40 per cent. a year. That sounds to me like an election-winning policy if ever there was one.
	I now move on to a matter of serious concern in my  constituency and the south-east generally—development. The overdevelopment of my constituency, without any infrastructural provision whatever, is irresponsible. Fortunately for me, the people in my constituency understand that the problem has been forced on Castle Point by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has set a target of building 4,000 extra houses. I wish he could visit Castle Point so that he could show my constituents where he wants those houses to go, and answer their questions about the lack of infrastructure.
	I have fought every major planning application in my constituency. I have fought to stop the overdevelopment of my beautiful borough and the destruction of our green belt. I have fought to secure decent infrastructure in the area, and I hope that my constituents will bear this issue at the forefront of their minds at the coming general election. It is an issue that affects the quality of their lives. When I raised the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister himself two or three months ago, he referred to my constituents as nimbys. They were outraged and the local press were outraged. I am sure that my constituents would have a word or two for the Deputy Prime Minister if he ever ventured into my constituency.
	Another major issue in Castle Point is infrastructure. We need to do something at Saddlers Farm on the A13 to achieve grade separation and improve the traffic flows on that major road. We also need to improve the junctions at Tarpots and in Hadleigh.
	However, our major problem is that we lack an additional access road to Canvey island, where more than 40,000 people live. If—God forbid!—the island ever had to be evacuated, those people could not be removed in good time. Safety is one of the issues, but there are also questions of convenience and quality of life. My constituents often wait for hours when there is an accident, or if the main access road is closed for some other reason. That does not happen only a few times a year: it happens almost every month, and sometimes twice a month. It is a major problem, and we must tackle it seriously.
	An equally important problem is the c2c rail line, to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) probably referred to it too, as he is a great fighter on behalf of the commuters who use that line. About 4,000 of my constituents use the line to commute to London.
	Benfleet station is the busiest station on the c2c line. Peak-time trains are often full and overcrowded when they stop there, so my constituents get a bad deal, as they have to stand up for the 35 or 40 minutes that the journey to London takes. That is unsafe, and not very nice; I know, as I have to do journey myself, from time to time. Therefore, I was disgusted when five train sets were removed from the line last September. With other MPs, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I ran a campaign to get the trains back. The local Yellow Advertiser newspaper also ran an important campaign to the same end.
	I am delighted to be able to congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport, who gave me an undertaking in this House just a week or so ago that those five train sets would be returned to the c2c line sometime this year. However, I am slightly disappointed, as "sometime this year" is not good enough. I want those train sets back on my line so that my constituents do not have to stand, which is generally what happens, as that is unsafe and inconvenient. Moreover, I want them back before the summer. That is what I shall press for, if I am fortunate enough to be re-elected.
	I want to say a few words about the need for more police officers, community support officers and special constables. The police have a very hard job, and they do it extremely well in my constituency. However, they need more resources to keep police stations open so that they can do their job properly, and they need a lot less bureaucracy.
	In addition, we need more facilities for kids, to get them off the street by offering them alternative things to do. We need to tackle asylum abuse too, but there is clearly not time to deal with that today.
	Finally, I want to say that I represent a very beautiful area of south Essex. My constituency nestles on the Thames, and Canvey island is actually part of the Thames estuary. The area has a remarkable heritage, but most importantly, its people are really good and self-reliant. They love their country and their community, which they want to be protected and improved.
	An election is due. More than most, I know that this may be my last speech in this House. I accept that: I am a democrat and have been humiliated by the electorate before. I also know that I have four excellent candidates up against me in Castle Point, and I wish each of them well. They are good people.
	I want to end by saying that I have worked hard for my constituents, country and community. I have worked especially hard to protect Britain, in Europe and in an uncertain world. I have very much enjoyed being an MP. There is no greater privilege or honour than to be elected to represent the community in which one lives. I therefore thank all my constituents—even those who seem to write to me every day.

Rudi Vis: I have spoken about Cyprus in previous Adjournment debates, but I shall not do so today, given the very sensitive negotiations that are being held in respect of Turkey's possible accession to the EU on 3 October. I shall turn instead to the proscription in the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States of the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran—the PMOI—in the review of the Terrorism Act 2000.
	Obviously, no one wants to undermine effective and lawful measures against terrorist organisations, but the PMOI is a legitimate resistance movement with the aim of establishing democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. Yesterday was new year's day for Iranians the world over, and two days ago I attended an international symposium of parliamentarians and jurists in the assembly hall of Church House in Deans yard, where I spoke in much the same terms as now.
	The PMOI has ceased all military activities since June 2001. More importantly, its activities, which were confined to Iran and never took place outside, were aimed at the repressive regime of the mullahs. The proscription of the PMOI and another 20 organisations was discussed in the House for one and a half hours, and no evidence against the PMOI was forthcoming in that debate. The proscription seems to be a legal construct, but in reality it is a political construct, so it can be done and undone.
	Mrs. Rajavi, who is seen by the PMOI as the president elect, and directs a large administration in France in preparation for and in the hope of a takeover in Iran, recently spoke in the European Parliament. She rightly rejects the appeasement approach that France, Germany and the UK want to follow. She also rightly rejects the war option. She presented a third option—change brought about by the Iranian people and the Iranian resistance.
	It is difficult to understand the appeasement road. Why would anyone be in favour of a regime that has no human rights, has a nuclear weapons programme, exports terrorism and fundamentalism and has killed 120,000 of its own people? It is also difficult to understand the war option, particularly after Iraq. I would add that there are few similarities between the societies of Iran and Iraq.
	Mrs. Rajavi's third way is surely the preferred option. It requires the proscription of the PMOI to be lifted as soon as possible. Doing so would be part of bringing much of what is now so dangerous and difficult in the middle east to an end. I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to put my request to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for an answer based on real evidence.
	I wish all hon. Members a tranquil Easter.

David Amess: I wish all those who are leaving the House voluntarily a long and happy retirement. The House will miss their contributions for various reasons, and I am sure that their constituents are grateful for what they have been able to do for them.
	I want to raise a number of issues before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. They all involve injustice. In this country there is increasingly a feeling of unjust treatment. The unborn child is treated unjustly under existing legislation, and that would increase if the Science and Technology Committee report were implemented and parents were allowed to choose the sex of their children.
	Only this week I was lobbied by the Fire Brigades Union, which believes that its members' pensions have been dealt with unjustly. It advised me that the Government plan to close 46 local emergency fire control rooms and replace them with only nine regional control centres. That is unsafe and unjust.
	Only a few days ago, all Members were lobbied by an Alzheimer's group. In Central Lobby, I met a constituent called Mrs. Glassbrook. Baroness Chalker is a relative of hers, and together we have been trying to deal with the case of Mrs. Glassbrook's husband for five years. I asked how her husband was and she said that sadly, he died last month. I have just part of the file that I have on her husband before me now, but the help that he needed came too late. I vow to that lady to get justice for all those who suffer with Alzheimer's.
	I also seek justice for Southend council tax payers. Just a few weeks ago, I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. The present leader of Southend council is standing down in May because of the stress that he has suffered trying to make ends meet. He wrote a brief letter to me saying that in response to the debate, the Minister talked
	"about percentages rather than money. He failed to say that most of the 4 per cent. increase had to go to Education and that what was left over did not even cover the pensions deficit that they insist we pay. Once these issues are addressed there is a minus score to cover inflation and job evaluation which is also a government ruling."
	As the leader of the council puts it, 4 per cent. of nothing is nothing.
	It is crazy that the Office for National Statistics should claim that the population of Southend has fallen by some 20,000. When one adds up the number of electors in both constituencies and includes the number of those aged under 18, one gets more than the 160,000 figure reached by the ONS. I said to the Minister that perhaps we could set aside some time to count all the human beings living in Southend on a particular day, and he is going to come back to me on that point. I have made an appointment with the ONS to go through the figures in great detail.
	There is further injustice in the way in which law and order is being dealt with at the moment. Most hon. Members saw the BBC programme "Drunk and Dangerous", which contained appalling scenes. I hope to meet the programme producers shortly, but the programme ended with details of the action taken against some of the individuals shown. One got a £35 penalty ticket and another got an £85 penalty ticket. One gentleman was so severely injured that he lay in Southend hospital for five weeks, but no action was taken against his assailant.
	Hardly a week goes by that I do not get a letter from a constituent about unjust sentencing. Recently, we all read about Jamie Mason, a 12-year-old boy who was killed in January by someone who should not have been in Britain in the first place. That gentleman was sentenced to eight weeks in jail.
	In December, a young man was found dead outside the nightclub featured in "Drunk and Dangerous". All the police resources were concentrated outside the nightclub, while no doubt the rest of the town was open to all and sundry. Who decides how forces are deployed? Why are nightclubs never challenged? How is it that the general public have to pay for the disorder outside such places?
	I was drawn to a recent article headed, "Where are the Police when you need them? Fewer crimes than ever are being solved. What's gone wrong and how can we rebuild a force to be proud of?" The most reliable figures for Essex show that crime detection is down 19 per cent. and the number of people brought to justice is down 8 per cent. The article ends with four suggestions: follow the example of West Midlands police and free officers from paperwork; spend more time on foot patrol, solving the crimes that concern the public most; be accessible, even in rural areas—the number of police stations has dropped from 2,700 to 1,900 since 1990; and improve police officers' customer relations skills. I hope that the newly appointed chief constable of Essex has time to read that article. If he does not have a copy, I will send him one.
	I hope that a few Members listened to the "Today" programme this morning to hear of the plight of my constituent, Maajid Nawaz, and the two other detainees. It is an absolute disgrace. They are serving a five-year sentence, which in Egypt really means five years, and have already done three years. Maajid's mother came to see me in great distress, because the men were deprived recently of many of the human rights that we expect. The families would very much welcome a further meeting with the Foreign Secretary to talk about the men's welfare. There must be an arrangement whereby the Government can ensure that the men serve the rest of their sentence in the United Kingdom.
	A local fisherman came to see me recently, because he was concerned about fishing quotas for smaller vessels, and I shall raise the matter in Brussels next week. He was concerned about the allocation for the non-sector group, which comprises about 240 boats of under 10 m and about 24 boats of over 10 m. It was announced that the quota for the under-10s would be 1 tonne of sole a month for nine months. The fishermen could not survive on that amount, so after some lobbying they were awarded 2 tonnes a month for nine months—but that is more per boat than the yearly quota for the whole of the over-10 m fleet, so those who work those boats are undoubtedly being treated unjustly.
	On 4 April, at Southend United football ground, I am proud to say that we shall be launching a strategy to tackle obesity. Sporting celebrities and people from the health and education services will attend the conference. My final remarks are also about Southend United. Last year the team reached the final of the LDV Vans trophy in Cardiff. Everyone said, "David, you've got to go along. You'll never see Southend in a football final again in your lifetime." What happened? The team reached the final again this year. I wish the manager, Steve Tilson, and the director, Ron Martin, the very best of luck for Sunday 10 April, when they will again be travelling to the Millennium stadium for the final against Wrexham. I hope that on that occasion justice will be seen to be done, the best team will win, and that the best team will be Southend United.

Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. It will not surprise Members that I shall mention Crossrail, for which I have been campaigning for many years.
	I was disappointed at the lack of local co-operation on that campaign, but I am glad to say that that has now been reversed. I am delighted that the hybrid Bill on Crossrail has been published and even more pleased that it will be subject to a carry-over process so that whenever the election comes—possibly in May, who knows?—the measure will not be lost. As Members who have been in this place for longer than me will know, the Bill was lost once before.
	The announcement about Crossrail was both good news and bad news for my constituency. The bad news was that the western terminus is still proposed to be Maidenhead—Maidenhead!—not Reading; but the good news was the announcement that there would be consultation on safeguarding the route to Reading from Maidenhead, which we hope will prohibit development that might prevent the extension of the route to Reading. The cross-party group of Reading political candidates learned of that when they accompanied me to a meeting with Crossrail in December 2004. I always like to work cross-party when I can, and it is surprisingly often possible to do so.
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to the cross-party work that he has been doing. I am pleased that, since 1997, I have worked with him on the all-party Japan group, and I hope that that work has been productive for both. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) also referred to cross-party working, and I feel that our constituents respect cross-party working where it is possible. It goes a long way to combat the widely held cynicism felt among people who perhaps only see Prime Minister's questions and nothing else of what happens in the House.

Peter Viggers: I should like to take this opportunity to say that the hon. Lady's speech in the House on the subject of the Emperor of Japan's visit was exceptionally valuable and well worth while, and I congratulate her again on it.

Jane Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which has rather moved me.
	I want to raise quickly in the short time that I have left a couple of issues that have emerged recently in my constituency. It is painful to say it, but after the 2004 local and European elections, there was some concern about the possibility that large numbers of postal votes were not all done correctly. That is certainly a concern that I raised in respect of Redlands ward of my constituency, but we in Reading are not alone in having that experience. A police investigation has been carried out. An internal audit by Reading borough council has also considered the matter, and both investigations have uncovered serious irregularities.
	The findings of the internal audit investigation were given to Thames Valley police, who carried out their own investigation, the outcome of which was a determination that voting fraud had been widespread in Redlands ward, where people had voted either using the identities of people who had moved away, or had invented the identities of people who simply did not exist. It has not been possible for the police to find evidence against any individual, but the fact remains that we are left in a situation that will not inspire confidence in any future election.
	I understand that a petition to rerun an election must be presented within 21 days, so there is no way for the courts to become involved in the matter. The local Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have called for the election in Redlands ward to be run again, and today's Evening Post—the local paper in Reading—has as its headline, "Resign in the Name of Democracy". In the spirit of cross-party working in most unfortunate circumstances, I must agree with all three and say that the three councillors elected last June in Redlands ward should resign and let us run the election again.
	It is disappointing that the chairman of Reading Labour party, Stuart Singleton-White, has said that he does not think that there is a case for re-running the election because of the majority involved and the fact that the number of votes was so great. He does not feel that the outcome would be influenced thereby. I am sorry, but if one ballot paper is fraudulent, the election should be run again. I hope that the three councillors will listen to reason in their interests, in all our interests and in the interests of democracy, because as the saying goes, "You can't be a little bit pregnant"—there is either fraud or there is not.
	It has been determined that there was fraud, so the people of Redlands ward in the heart of my constituency have the right to believe that, when they cast their votes, the councillors that they elect—or, indeed, the Member of Parliament whom they will elect in due course—have been elected freely and fairly. I have been part of election teams in six different elections, mostly in the former Soviet Union, and I take that responsibility very seriously. We are always very frank in the reports that we make following our observations. How can I return to my constituency and say, "Oh well, of course, we wagged our fingers in Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia, but it is okay in Reading."? It is not okay. I am sorry that both Reading borough council and Reading Labour party are not yet with us on that, but I think that they will be; I think that they will see sense.
	I wish to raise another slightly painful issue. A recent libel case has involved two hon. Members—not me—on opposite sides of the House: my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is not in his place. As that action was at least in part based on a letter that I wrote to a constituent who had questions for me, I feel that I must, painful though it is, mention the matter today.
	I will not regale the House with the details of everything in the letter and everything that has been said because most of them, in any case, are in the public domain. However, I must say that I spoke the truth and wrote the truth in the letter. I hold no brief for the hon. Member for Woodspring, but what he has said publicly has been the truth. I hope that the matter can be set straight.
	I will not stand by and see untruths perpetrated. I will fight against corruption and bullying wherever I see them. I am quite sure that my successor in Reading, East—I wish him well, whoever he might be—will have that same battle to fight. I hope that he succeeds. I hope that he will not tolerate bullying. I hope that more people will not have to be the victims of it in the way in which too many have been. I hope that no one in the future will tolerate that corruption—I am sorry to have to use that word, but it is the word that must be used—and that it will not be allowed to continue.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I wish friends, colleagues and all hon. Members here a happy and tranquil Easter, and a peaceful and better future for all of us?

Julian Lewis: This has certainly been a valedictory debate, in more ways than one. We are closing this particular part of the parliamentary year for the Easter recess, and as we have heard time and again, many hon. Members have been taking the opportunity to make what will almost certainly be their final contributions in the House if, as we expect, a general election is called shortly after our return.
	Once again, the Deputy Leader of the House and I face the unenviable task of trying to summarise many speeches in a relatively short time. I believe that 19 speeches have been made during the debate: 10 by Labour Members, seven by Conservative Members and two by Liberal Democrats. I cannot but observe that the two Liberal Democrats who contributed to the debate are both retiring. I suppose that we must all draw our own conclusions about where their colleagues are at the moment, but they are certainly not in the House of Commons earning their money.
	In preparation for these debates, I always seek inspiration from the news of the day, or at least any other electronic communications that come my way. Hon. Members can imagine my chagrin when, as I checked my e-mails before coming into the Chamber for the start of the debate, I found that a single e-mail had arrived. I do not often get spam, so I fear that someone is trying to tell me something. The e-mail was from an organisation called Skills Train and had as its subject, "Train for a new career today". I am not sure what the organisation has in mind, although it says that any one of a wide variety of career paths could be mine. However, if the good electors of New Forest, East do what I want them to do, I hope that I will not have to take up that offer for at least a few years to come.
	The custom at such times has been to pay tribute to colleagues who are retiring, and I know that the Deputy Leader of the House intends to do that to at least some such Labour Members. I know that more than a dozen of my colleagues will be stepping down at the election, so I would like to say a brief word about a few who have especially touched my life during the course of a political career that went on for a considerable time before I was fortunate enough to be elected.
	Top of the list must be my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe), who brought more than a dash of glamour to the Conservative Benches during her distinguished career. I include her on the list because she has never been known to be stumped by a constituency case. I have always borne in mind the example she gave me of a sad lady who visited her. The lady was quivering and extremely nervous and agitated as she explained that she was constantly being zapped by rays coming from the men of Mars via the medium of her television screen. For a brief moment, my hon. Friend was stumped, but inspiration struck, and she said to that poor lady, "This is quite simple to deal with. Every time you watch television, put on a pair of rubber boots, which will prevent the rays from being earthed and the problem will go away." The lady never returned to see my hon. Friend, but whether that was because the prescription worked, or because her bluff had been called, or because it was an episode of "Candid Camera" that was never shown, I do not know. However, if I remember my hon. Friend for nothing else—and I shall remember her for a great deal more—I shall certainly always keep her wise ability to deal with a constituency case diplomatically and effectively in the forefront of my mind.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) made a significant contribution to today's debate. For three decades or more, he has fought the battle for British sovereignty both inside and outside the House. His campaign against the European Union's assumption of powers that ought to remain in the grasp of our country, Parliament and electorate is unparalleled. It is a source of shame to me as a Conservative that for a brief period the Whip was withdrawn from him for continuing to say on that vital issue what he had said all his political career. I can assure him, although I am sure that he does not need reassurance, that such a thing would never happen in today's Conservative party.
	Right to the end of his political career, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has assiduously participated in Question Time after Question Time, and has shown throughout that courtesy and gentility are alive and well in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) is also retiring. The House should be aware that he did an enormous amount of cross-party work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to bring the benefits of training in democratic techniques to the new democracies that were formerly part of the Soviet and eastern European bloc. They have benefited from his guidance and advice. When I was a recalcitrant official at Conservative central office, I benefited from the wise and kind advice that he gave me as deputy party chairman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will probably not remember this, but when he was chairman of the Young Conservatives he took the time in the midst of a busy party conference in Blackpool to give encouragement to a young state school boy—myself—who was attending his first ever national Conservative conference, and to give advice about how to conduct oneself at such events. I am sure that many of us have had similar experiences—we know how much it means at the outset of our political careers to receive advice from people whose own political careers are well advanced, and we appreciate their taking the time and trouble to do so. Finally, my hon.Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who had a distinguished front-line career in the Royal Air Force, has been committed to the defence of the United Kingdom for decades. I have found his career and principled adherence to the promotion of this country's defence inspirational over the years.
	Before I come to the contributions to our debate, I should like to make one more point. We have all, not least myself, spent a great deal of time talking about Members who are leaving the Commons, but we should bear in mind the situation of the young hopefuls in every party who, even as we speak, are gearing up to try to enter the House of Commons for the first time. Who can forget the ordeal of the selection process? Who can forget the task of forging a campaign team from a variety of volunteer activists? [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that they wish that they could forget, but I am sure that it is burned indelibly on their souls, just as it is on mine. Who can forget what it feels like stepping into the unknown for the first time on polling day? Like other hon. Members, I have personal friends standing in seats from Bournemouth and Brighton to Harlow and Worcester, from Eastleigh and Romsey to the Forest of Dean, from Weston-super-Mare to Mid-Dorset and North Poole and many, many more. I wish them well in the ordeal that they face, as I am sure hon. Members in other parties wish their friends, whom no doubt they are encouraging, as I would wish to encourage mine.
	Once again, this end-of-term debate shows the value of the single Member constituency. Who can doubt for a second that the speeches that we have heard today showing the depth of knowledge, commitment and understanding about local issues are a direct result of the way in which the individual Member of Parliament is allocated an individual geographical area and a particular collection of citizens of the United Kingdom to represent?
	I begin by mentioning the first speaker, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), whose contribution showed his intense commitment to the manufacturing and aerospace industries as they are represented in his constituency. I would expect nothing less from a former head of policy for a major trade union and a former member of the TUC general council, as I know he is. He clearly has a tremendous commitment to Airbus and to his constituency work force, but I would like to pay tribute to him for something else. He was the first speaker in the debate, and he remained in the Chamber throughout the entire debate till the very end, listening to every other contribution. I take my hat off, metaphorically speaking, to him for doing that.
	Then my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East spoke in detail about devolution and said that now that it has been tried for a considerable time, people should be given a chance to have a say once again, but this time with the experience and ability to judge whether they consider it has worked or not. I cannot think of any reason to oppose such a suggestion. He spoke also about asylum seekers who abuse the system by deliberately destroying their papers after entry. He referred, as I would have expected, to the EU and to the Iraq war, and he said that many young people are switching off politics. That theme recurred in many other contributions.
	No one could fail to be moved by the contribution ofthe hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who spoke in great detail about a case on which he had been working for 18 years. The fact that he chose to use his last contribution in the House to bring what comfort he could to the family whom he represented so assiduously shows a great nobility of spirit. I am sure that that family will treasure the words that he had to say about their case.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is an extremely assiduous parliamentarian. He once again returned to the Steven Roberts case—the terrible case of the soldier who told his wife before his death occurred that he had been forced to give up body armour, and then indeed lost his life in Iraq as a result. I add my own tribute to the extremely brave campaign that his widow, Samantha Roberts, has been waging to get justice for his memory.
	I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his dislike of jousting in the Commons Chamber. It is a fact that if we were to remove from the parliamentary process the adversarial system, and substitute for it a system where politicians of all parties were effectively in each other's pockets, democracy as a whole would be the loser. The way in which corruption is dealt with in a democratic system is for people who err to know that if they err, their political opponents will be on to it like a shot. Woe betide us if we ever get to a situation where all politicians are chums not just personally, as many of us are across the divide of the House, but politically. I have had dealings with people who live in societies that are run by constant coalitions. They tell me that they can never really have confidence in going to a member of the opposition in order to criticise the Government because they can never be sure that, the next day, that member of the opposition will not be in alliance with that Government. Therefore they will always pull their punches. In a democracy, we do not want politicians to pull their punches.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) also shared the view of not liking combative politics.

Tony Banks: indicated dissent.

Julian Lewis: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is dissenting. I am put in mind of one memorable Adjournment debate, when he was a Minister responding to a colleague of mine. The debate was about bell ringing. He opened his remarks by saying that that colleague, whose name I will not mention, was the man who had
	"put the camp back into campanology."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1080.]
	[Laughter.] It is great when I get a laugh for someone else's joke. If that is not a little bit of jousting, I do not know what is.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has made the case for saving Haslar hospital a cause célèbre at Westminster. It is synonymous with his name. No one could have fought harder for a constituency cause than he has on that issue, and I wish him every success.
	The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) is clearly determined to do the best for his constituency in terms of communications by road and the blight on the lives and homes of his electors that ill advised road planning measures can inflict. He impressed the House with his mastery of detail on the issue. I hope that his campaign likewise meets with success.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, who is retiring, gave strong evidence of his commitment to human rights in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. It was a fascinating insight for me, because the work for bodies such as the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and other transnational assemblies on which he has been our representative are not always sufficiently represented in the House. I was glad that he had not had the wool pulled over his eyes as to the state of affairs in Russia today, although naturally, like him, I welcome all steps in a democratic direction in that much benighted country.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) managed to do something that is extremely clever for any politician, and that is to combine their political causes with the cause of benefiting, backing up and supporting anything to do with football. I have found from my experience that I can struggle with what I regard as the most important political cause going, but it will never be reported half as much as when I say a single word about safe standing in football stadiums. Then I can be assured of blanket coverage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke with great feeling and affection for the countryside and made it clear that people in the countryside hate to be considered second-class citizens. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke about her work on hospital provision and antisocial behaviour. I was a little surprised, however, that she did not refer to her work on international development and some of the causes that she has supported in other parts of the world for the underprivileged and downtrodden. Over the years she has been here, I have noted her great interest in and effective spokesmanship on behalf of those causes. I for one, if I am fortunate enough to be back here after the election, will miss what she has to say on those subjects in particular.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) spoke about the problems of the rail link from St. Pancras and the heavy-handed Government pressure on his local authority. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) expressed grave concern about public health in his constituency, telecommunication masts and ghastly wind farms, a subject on which I share his doubts.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) paid tribute to his predecessor, Irvine Patnick. I am sure that his successor, Dr. Spencer Pitfield, the Conservative candidate, will earn equal plaudits. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made a typically principled speech on Europe and on postal ballot corruption. He often says things with which I entirely agree—that will probably not do his electoral prospects any good—and today was no exception.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is a cheery soul, but cheeriness can be carried too far when wishing one's opponents the best of luck in an election campaign.
	I should like to have said a little more about the contributions of the hon. Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), but my time is up.
	As this is such a friendly and jolly debate, I shall conclude with a word of kindness even for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is quoted in today's papers as being worried about the contribution that Lynton Crosby, an Australian, is making to the Conservative election campaign. I assure him that we deliberately have an Australian making such an important contribution, because at the general election the Conservatives intend to turn the results of the last general election completely upside down.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) should keep digging, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is a pleasure to wind up the Easter recess Adjournment debate and to thank the hon. Member for New Forest, East for his kind remarks about Members who are retiring from this House; I echo those sentiments. On a second note of consensus, I strongly agree with his point that this debate, above all others, shows the value of our single-Member constituency system.
	I shall try to respond to the points made by hon. Members and commit myself to taking up issues to which I am not able to reply directly. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) raised the issue of manufacturing in his constituency and the benefits that the Airbus A380 has brought to his constituents. I echo his comments; I am aware that he is a champion of manufacturing industry and of that project in particular.
	As usual, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) made a strong and feisty speech. It is a great sadness that he will not be able to join us for future Adjournment debates, but I wish him every good fortune for the future. He made three points: something should be done; something should be done; and "We're doomed!" He said that devolution to Scotland and Wales was regrettable. I should point out, to make a partisan point, that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), the shadow Welsh Secretary, is in favour of abolishing the Welsh Assembly, yet Mr. Nick Bourne, the Conservative leader on the Welsh Assembly wants—surprise, surprise—to increase its powers. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East needs to square that circle. Nevertheless, we will miss him and his speeches, particularly his campaigning against the European Union.
	Similarly, we will miss my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I echo the serious remarks that he made. To use what is perhaps his last speech in the House of Commons to give comfort to a family is very honourable, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House writes to him about the case of Christopher Butcher.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) also raised a constituency issue. I undertake to write to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask for the completion of the process that he asked for. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Parliament First group, and he is a parliamentarian who does put Parliament first. He understands the difficulties that Governments of all political colours have in reconciling differences between Parliament and the Executive, and has been a great advocate of the modernisation of Parliament, but in a cautious way. I hope that some of his campaigns will come to fruition in the years to come; I am sure that they will.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) made a typically forthright, robust and humorous speech. He had gone to the trouble of calculating how many times he had intervened in the House and noted that he had tabled 7,514 written questions and 720 oral questions. He forgot to point out that he was a Minister for part of that period, and a very successful Sports Minister at that. Most of us had forebodings that a Chelsea fan would not know anything about sport, but he has a lot to look forward to in his retirement, if indeed that is what it is. I suspect that it will not be a retirement, but he will have more opportunities to watch his beloved football team. We all wish him the best.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) again mentioned the Royal Hospital Haslar. It may help him if I inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is currently considering the letter from Hampshire county council health review committee requesting that the primary care trust decision on service changes in Fareham and Gosport be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision in due course, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter on behalf of his constituents.
	As he always does in such debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) painted a picture of his constituency to make the House familiar with the issues in it. He raised the problems of the consultation—or the lack of meaningful consultation as he and his constituents see it—on the development of the A120 and one roundabout in particular. I am informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is awaiting the outcome of the consultation, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's point about its inadequacy is passed on.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for his work in the House, particularly on the international stage and in the process of bringing democracy to the eastern European countries. Our abhorrence of the Berlin wall and everything that it stood for is one thing that unites us in this House, and I remember as a young student being aware of his work, many years before I was elected. I pay tribute to him for that. I can give him the assurance that he asks for, and I will bring his comments to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
	As has already been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is a very clever politician, and she raised the important point of her football team—the MK Dons—and the problems that she has experienced with Supporters Direct. She has asked written questions about Supporters Direct, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism will respond to the points that she has raised today.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised a number of constituency points, as she did in the last recess debate. I say to her in all seriousness that it is regrettable if the impression is given that the Government see the south-west of England as second class. It is not the intention at all. The policy of devolving transport decisions to regions is intended to help them to plan and provide better, and not, as she may have implied, to reduce the funding available. Her point about the A303 is important. It is a cross-party point, and I will bring her views to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made a strong speech, and I know that she is held in high regard by Members throughout the House for her work for the people of Swindon, and South Swindon in particular. She will find that her legacy will be as a moderniser not just in this place. It is no surprise that she was an accountant in the national health service—she was, of course, one of the so-called bureaucrats that the Conservatives would abolish if they had their way. However, I suspect that she has probably saved the NHS more money in her professional work by pointing out how efficiencies could be made, thereby releasing money for patient care, than the rest of us put together. She brought her eye for figures to the debate and pointed out that collectively we have wasted at least   70 years in the Division Lobbies. I am sure that hon. Members will continue her campaign for modernisation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon also raised concerns about cutbacks in advice services, family centres and other services in Swindon. She will see her legacy when she travels round her constituency and sees the new hospitals, schools and developments that were made possible because of her election and the changes that were brought about. I wish her all the best for the future.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised some important constituency points about St. Pancras and Thameslink. He made some political points about the choices that the Government could make. It is not the intention of the Government's policy, of course, to hinder in any way the good people of Swineshead or the multiple sclerosis centre, which was a matter raised in business questions. He asked us to make a choice: he has a point on the first two, and I will raise those points with the Ministers concerned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) used the Adjournment debate to raise important constituency matters, such as the Thundersprint event on 8 May, at which I hope to join him. He raised important points about the Telecommunications Act 1984, wind farms, teaching assistants, pay cuts from the county council, and his campaign for the new crossing of the Mersey. I can inform him that the relevant Department is now considering the revised appraisal and bid, and an announcement will be made in due course.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made important points about the scrutiny of European issues, many of which are contained in a Select Committee report published this week, and raised again his concerns abut the future of the republic of Colombia. I can inform him that the Under-Secretary responsible has written to all Members this week about Government action over Colombia, partly in response to his and others' campaign. He is also a valuable member of the Speaker's advisory panel, and his work on that on behalf of all of us should be noted. I thank him for that, and wish him all the best for the future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made a typically articulate common-sense case on behalf of his constituents. A number of hon. Gentlemen have raised the issue of the c2c line. I know that there have been improvements, but there is still some way to go, as the old adverts used to say. He raised his important concerns about postal voting, of which I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is aware.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—the "shadow Minister for Adjournment debates"—managed to score highly by mentioning a number of constituency issues. I hope that he makes it to the Benfleet club this evening. I will take up his specific point on the hospice—his request for an increase of the 1.8 per cent. for the Littlehaven hospice to the average of 5 per cent. from his primary care trust. I could, of course, point out the increases in funding that the Government have provided for hospices, and I have just done so. [Laughter.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) moved off the issue of Cyprus, on which he has spoken with great authority and passion for many years, and took us towards the policy on Iran. I think that he is aware of the policy towards the People's Mujaheddin, but I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of his comments, and I thank him for the intelligence and insights that he has brought to the debate.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a number of constituency points, some very powerfully, particularly in relation to his fears about drink-driving incidents. We all share his outrage in that regard. I wish that my team, Oldham Athletic, were joining his in the final, but unfortunately we were beaten by Wrexham in the semi-final. I suppose, therefore, that I will support Southend. I wish him good luck.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made a speech about Crossrail. I congratulate her on her campaigning on that issue, and take her point about where the end of the line should come. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of those points, and perhaps I shall pass over the other points that she made about local issues, as that is not territory into which I should tread. I wish her all the best for the future, however.
	May I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of wishing you in particular, and all right hon. and hon. Members, a very happy Easter? I look forward to a vigorous new beginning of the Session, after the recess, on 4 April.

Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GILES CARLYLE-CLARKE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Robert Walter: I shall speak about just one gentleman, my constituent Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke, and about his impending extradition to the United States.
	I know that the Minister had reservations about this debate, because she feels that she may have been operating in a quasi-judicial role, but I believe that she is responsible to Parliament for the decisions that have been made, and that it is therefore appropriate for those decisions to be questioned here. I will, however, seek reassurance from her on one aspect of the process, which I hope she will be able to give me. She was the Minister who made the final decision to accede to the wishes of the United States authorities, and authorise the extradition to the United States of my constituent. As his case is now being reviewed by her Department, it is her decision that is under review. I hope that she can reassure me that any decisions that are made are made not by her alone but by the Home Secretary himself. Otherwise she would be reviewing her own decision, and there can be no justice in that.
	The subject of this debate, however, is the fate of my constituent, Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke, who is wanted by the Government of the United States in relation to four charges involving the smuggling of cannabis into the United States—and the possession of cannabis there—between 1983 and 1988. The charges therefore relate to events that took place some 20 years ago. I do not intend to deal with the guilt or innocence of my constituent, because this is not a court of law, but I will make the House aware that he protests his innocence, and I have no reason to doubt him. He has led an open and blameless life, and his family have lived at the same address for several hundred years. He has given that address as his principal residence for at least the last 26 years. He is a single parent with two children aged nine and 12.
	My case to the Minister is a simple one. To extradite an individual for alleged crimes that the authorities claim took place between 17 and 22 years ago is unjust and oppressive when that individual has been living openly and not as a fugitive. This is an unprecedented decision, as it seems to ignore article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states that
	"everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time".
	The Americans have not given credible evidence that my constituent should be extradited. Their evidence is based on statements made by hardened criminals as part of plea-bargaining deals.
	Mr. Joel Cohen, an ex-district attorney in the United States, says:
	"In my opinion, the methods employed by the Government of the United States through Agent Baker and others in obtaining these three affidavits were not only quite wrong, but rose to the level of egregious misconduct."
	Joel Cohen has said that the effect of the American authorities' actions
	"has been to effectively destroy the fairness of any trial that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke may face."
	Moreover, if convicted my constituent would face a mandatory life sentence in Alabama with no possibility of parole.
	Mr. Carlyle-Clarke has lived and travelled openly—that includes visiting the United States since the alleged crime—and he has a clean record. The American authorities claim that they did not know where he was until the end of the 1990s. New evidence, which is before the Minister, proves that the American authorities have in fact known of his identity since 1988 and of his whereabouts since 1989. He has in fact served a sworn affidavit on the American authorities in May 1989, in which he gave his address—the address in Dorset, in my constituency—where he has continued to live. I have seen a copy of that document. It is inhumane to take away a sole parent from an eight-year-old child, and a child psychologist has given evidence outlining the horrendous and irreparable psychiatric damage that this extradition could have on his young child, Max.
	The basis of the case is that, in the past few weeks, Giles Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers have made a new submission to the Home Office, based on dramatic new evidence that has recently emerged in the United States. His lawyers believe that this new evidence means that the Home Office must reverse its decision to permit his extradition to the United States of America, as its decision made in November 2004 was based on information that now turns out to have been untrue.
	This new evidence reveals that the US authorities have, in fact, misled the Home Office. They claimed that they had no photographic means of identifying Giles Carlyle-Clarke until 1995. As he has claimed all along, it has now been confirmed that they had a photograph of him as long ago as May 1988. I have seen a copy of that photograph, which was acquired from the United States state attorney. Accordingly, the US authorities' reason for delay in extraditing Giles lacks any credibility. There now seems to be no explanation for the US authorities' delay in applying for the extradition of Giles Carlyle-Clarke until 1998 for alleged crimes that were committed between 17 and 22 years ago, when they knew of his identity in 1988 and his address in 1989.
	In their new submission to the Home Office, Giles Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers are also requesting that, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Home Office must release the full correspondence between itself and the US authorities in this case. I have also written to the Minister to make that same request, and I would be delighted if she could give me an answer to it this evening.
	The new evidence is that Mr. Jefferson Dean, a US lawyer who has been retained by Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, discovered quite recently that a photograph of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke had been in the US authorities' possession since 1988, not 1995 as they had previously asserted. In addition, as I have said, Giles Carlyle-Clarke signed a sworn affidavit which was served on the US authorities and gave his home address in 1989. This was in connection with charges against another gentleman, who is not particularly relevant here, relating to the smuggling of cannabis. The US authorities have therefore been able to identify Giles Carlyle-Clarke, and known of his whereabouts, since 1988 and 1989 respectively. On the back of the new submission, the Home Office will be considering the papers relating to his case.
	The background relating to the new evidence is that the Home Office has been led to believe by the US authorities that they were only able to identify Giles Carlyle-Clarke from that photograph in 1995 and, therefore, progressed the extradition in the belief that the delay for the extradition request was acceptable.
	The US authorities claimed that as they had no photograph of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke before 1995 they had no means of identifying him and circulating him as a wanted criminal before then, and therefore could not find him for three years. If they had been able to do so, they could have put him on a red Interpol list and, given his extensive travels in the intervening years, which are apparent from the photocopy of his passport that I have seen, he would have been apprehended much earlier. But the authorities made no attempt to do that, despite the fact that he maintained that the photograph had been in the possession of the US authorities since 1988 and so they must have known his identity for at least seven years before they said they had.
	During a period of over six years since 1998, the legal process in this country required the Home Secretary to consider the representations of both the US authorities and Mr. Carlyle-Clarke on the question of delay. But the Home Secretary at the time persistently rejected Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's version of events. In November 2004, he was informed of the Home Secretary's decision to extradite him to the US. Also in November 2004, Mr. Justice Pitchford held in the High Court that the Home Secretary was fully entitled to find on the evidence before him that the US authorities did not come into possession of the photograph until 1995 or thereafter, and that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's defence team was wrong to suggest that there was any evidence to the contrary. As Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's lawyers had not expected this interpretation of the evidence, they decided to instruct a US-based attorney, Mr. Jeffrey Dean III, with a specific brief to find out what the truth was. During his investigation, Jeffrey Dean discovered the new evidence.
	Giles Carlyle-Clarke maintains that he is innocent. He has been living an open and blameless life based at the same address in Dorset for over 25 years, and not as a fugitive. He has travelled extensively, including to the US. He is the sole parent of Max, aged eight, and father to Jessica, aged 12. He knew nothing of these allegations until he was arrested by the Dorset police in December 1997.
	In summary, can the Minister tell me why she is content that the US authorities did not seek the extradition of Giles Carlyle-Clarke until January 1998 on charges that related to events that took place between 1983 and 1988? Why, after a decision by the courts in this country to allow the extradition in November 1999, did it take the Home Office two and a half years until July 2002 to respond?
	It is, to use a legal phrase, unjust and oppressive, by reason of the passage of time, for Giles Carlyle-Clarke to be extradited to the US. I understand from leading Queen's Counsel who specialise in this area of the law that if the case related to an extradition between Commonwealth countries it would be held to be unjust on the basis of his inability to deal with events so distant in the past, and oppressive because he has lived a new and blameless life in the intervening period.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure me now that Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke can get on with his life as a free man without these charges hanging over him.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this Adjournment debate. He is obviously doing what he should be doing on behalf of a constituent as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I understand his concerns for his constituent and his constituent's family. As I have already made clear to the hon. Gentleman, I take no issue with his setting out his reasons for believing that Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke should not be extradited to the US, but I should like to put the context of the case before the House this evening.
	The context is that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke is wanted by the US authorities in the state of Alabama on serious charges concerning the importation and possible distribution of marijuana. The accusations involve the smuggling into the US in 1986 and 1987 of several thousands pounds—in weight—of the drug. He is also alleged to have co-ordinated delivery and distribution of a further quantity of drugs in Alabama in 1988 and to have received payments then worth more than $1 million for those services. In other words, he is wanted for very serious offences. Government Members know that the Conservative party takes the issue of cannabis and marijuana very seriously indeed.
	Before proceeding any further, I should like to explain my specific difficulties with today's Adjournment debate, about which I wrote to Mr. Speaker. I copied the letter to the hon. Member for North Dorset and I hope that he will not mind me repeating some of the content for the House, which I believe is important.
	The difficulty arises from the present circumstances of the case. The applicable current resolution about sub judice matters was passed on 15 November 2001. It sets out in clear terms that a criminal or civil case should not be referred to in any motion, debate or question. However, extradition cases are slightly different from all other cases heard by our courts, because they involve both the courts and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the decision-making process. An extradition case is not concluded until a final decision is made by my right hon. Friend, so in taking this decision, he is acting in a quasi-judicial role. He must weigh up the case for and against the making of an extradition order, taking into account any representations made to him.
	In the case of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, the matter is currently before the Secretary of State for consideration of fresh representations made on 15 February 2005 by his solicitors. So, while the matter is not strictly sub judice under the terms of the 2001 resolution, the case has not yet concluded. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision and there remains the possibility of further legal proceedings in the form of an application for judicial review.
	In summary, I inquired of Mr. Speaker whether, in those circumstances, this debate should go ahead. He felt that it should, and I have accepted his decision. However, I can say very little publicly about the case until my right hon. Friend has taken his decision, and until that decision has been communicated to Mr Carlyle-Clarke. As I have assured the hon. Member for North Dorset, throughout the decision-making process, Home Office officials are maintaining appropriate contact with Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's legal representatives. I shall provide only a brief history of the case, about which the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and restrict myself to a few general comments.
	As I have explained, the alleged offences go back 17 years. An arrest warrant was first granted against Mr. Carlyle-Clarke by the district court in Alabama in 1992. There are some issues about the time taken before the US issued a request to us for his arrest that I cannot, for reasons that I have already explained, enter into here. Under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989, he was provisionally arrested for extradition on 9 January 1998 and remanded on bail. That date of arrest is now quite some time ago, but I can assure the House that the case did move on in the interval.
	On 4 January 1999, Mr Carlyle-Clarke was committed at Bow Street to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then Home Secretary, as to his return—a prima facie case having been found against him, based on documentary evidence and witness statements. He then applied for habeas corpus, but withdrew from that line of legal challenge on 10 November 1999.
	Under the Extradition Act 1989, it then fell to the Home Secretary to decide whether to make an order for Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's return. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was advised through his solicitors that he had the right to make representations to my right hon. Friend against that surrender by 2 December 1999. Under the procedures of the Extradition Act 1989, in making such a decision on surrender, the Secretary of State has to take into account not only statutory restrictions on return, but, in exercising his discretion, any other reason why it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order return. That can involve a very wide range of matters indeed. The deadline for representations was subsequently extended by the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and they were received from Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's solicitors on both 13 December 1999 and 1 February 2000. They covered a wide range of matters.
	Considerable inquiries were then made of the US authorities, followed by a very careful consideration of the representations, including a review of the case law cited in them. In due course, my predecessor as Minister with responsibility for extradition, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), signed an order for surrender on behalf of the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 3 July 2002. The period of two and half years may seem unduly long, but I am satisfied that the time taken was unprecedented neither under the terms of the extradition legislation that applied at the time, nor in the specific context of this matter.
	The solicitors then requested to be allowed to make further representations. That was agreed, given all thecircumstances of the case. Extensive further representations were received on a number of occasions, and further information from the US was also received before reconsideration of the case could be completed. In due course, on 27 November 2003, I confirmed the earlier decision to surrender made by my predecessor. I do not believe that the fact that I dealt with the matter at that time precludes me from dealing with it in future, when new information would allow me to make a fresh decision.
	In due course, the case came before the courts once again. On 26 November 2004, the High Court dismissed Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's application for judicial review. In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Pitchford considered all the arguments relating to delay in this case. Both Ministers and the courts had considered the case presented on behalf of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke in appropriate depth, and at that stage had been satisfied that no injustice or breach of human rights would occur, notwithstanding the contentions advanced as to passage of time. No statute of limitations applies, and the charge is a serious one. The overall time spent since the arrest involves time allowed for Mr. Carlyle-Clarke to make representations, as he is entitled to do, extensions granted by the Secretary of State to enable him to make those representations, and the time which has been needed for their due consideration.
	In terms of general questions about the passage of time precluding extradition, it may help if I quote from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Woodcock v. Government of New Zealand, cited at 2004/1/WLR1979. He said:
	"In my judgment, there can be no cut-off point beyond which extradition must inevitably be regarded as unjust or oppressive. It hardly needs me to point out that trial after 20 years or more is far from ideal. Sometimes, however, it may nevertheless be appropriate to extradite an accused for that purpose."
	The case has again come before the Home Secretary, and it would not be appropriate for me to go into further details, but I will just add that I have noted the comments from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the position of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's family. Extradition, by its nature—even more than other criminal proceedings—necessarily involves separation from loved ones. I recognise that, and such matters are taken into account
	There is one other matter that I must mention. The hon. Member for North Dorset and the solicitors representing Mr. Carlyle-Clarke have both asked in recent weeks that specific papers in relation to the case should be disclosed to them. The hon. Gentleman repeated that request again this evening.
	The request is being considered under the freedom of information procedures, but questions to do with international relations require further analysis before we respond, which we are trying to do as quickly as possible. There is nothing sinister about that: it is simply a question of respecting legal confidences between states. I can assure the hon. Member for North Dorset that no information has been withheld that is prejudicial to his constituent's case, but I hope he will forgive me if I cannot comment at this time. However, I have written to him, and I also faxed a letter to his office yesterday to confirm that we have set a deadline of 14 April for reply. I hope that his staff have alerted him to that fax, and I assure him that receipt was confirmed.
	In passing, I note that the difficulties arising in this case, and the time that has elapsed while it has been processed through the Home Office and the courts, seem to me rather illustrative of why it was necessary to review extradition procedures. The Extradition Act 2003 has greatly rationalised the process, and placed most decision-making on extradition before our independent courts, where it rightly should be.
	I am well aware that certain current cases even under the new Act are controversial, and I do not intend to stray beyond the scope of this debate by discussing them. However, early indications are that the new procedures will, over the course of time, prove to be much quicker than those under the old Act. That will serve the interests of justice and the fight against international crime. By no means least, it will serve the interests of defendants facing the uncertainties of extradition proceedings, as they will still have appropriate protections available to them.
	In conclusion, I hope that what I have had to say will have been of some assistance to the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is our intention that the decision currently awaited in the case will be reached as quickly as is consistent with a proper and just consideration of the latest representations.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty four minutes past Six o'clock